Full species report here

Transcription

Chilean Seabass
Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides)
Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni)
©Monterey Bay Aquarium
Southern Ocean
Bottom Longline
December 9, 2012
Johanna P. Pierre, JPEC Ltd
Updated August 6, 2013
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are
accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peerreviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or
aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its
recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions
reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision.
Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation.
2
Final Seafood Recommendation
Stock
Fishery
Impacts
on the
stock
Rank
(score)
Heard and
McDonald
Patagonian
toothfish
Heard and
McDonald
Island
Patagonian
Toothfish
Longline
Macquarie
Patagonian
Toothfish
Macquarie
Island
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Falkland Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish
Falkland Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Green
5
Green
(5)
Green
(5)
*
Impacts on
other species
Lowest scoring
species
*
Rank
(subscore, score)
Murray's skate
Heard and
McDonald,
Kerguelen
sandpaper skate,
Pacific sleeper
shark, Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Skates and rays,
Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow, 2.71,2.71
Southern sleeper
shark, Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow
(2.71 2.71)
Antarctic starry
skate, Whitemouth skate,
Porbeagle
Falklands, Joinedfins skate,
Multispined
skate, Whitedotted skate,
Darkbelly skate,
Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Big-eye grenadier
Falklands, Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow
(2.71, 2.71)
Management
Habitat
and
ecosystem
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
Green
5
Yellow
3.16
BEST CHOICE
3.83
Green
(5)
Yellow
(2.6)
BEST CHOICE
(3.64)
Green
(3.46)
Yellow
(2.74)
BEST CHOICE
(3.37)
Overall
Recommendation
(score)
Rank and color in the 'Impacts on other Species' column is defined based on the subscore rather than the score.
See www.seafoodwatch.org for more information about scoring rules.
3
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish
Ross Sea Antarctic
toothfish
Kerguelen Islands
Patagonian
toothfish
Crozet Island
Patagonian
Toothfish
Chile Patagonian
Toothfish
PE&MI
Patagonian
Toothfish
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Ross Sea
Antarctic
Toothfish
Longline
Kerguelen
Patagonian
Toothfish
Longline
Crozet
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Chile Domestic
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Prince Edward
and Marion
Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
longline
Green
(5)
Grenadiers,
Skates and rays
Red
(2.16, 2.16)
Green
(3.87)
Yellow
(2.6)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
(3.23)
Green
(3.83)
Grenadiers,
Skates and rays
Red (2.16,2.16)
Green
(3.46)
Yellow
(3)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
(3.05)
Yellow
(3)
Yellow
(2.24)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
(2.73)
Red
(1.73)
Red
(2.12)
AVOID
2.01
Green
(3.83)
Red
(2.16)
Ridge scaled
rattail Kerguelen,
White-chinned
petrel, Whiteleg
skate Kerguelen,
Grey petrel, Raya
spp.
Red (2.16,2.16)
Whiteleg skate
Crozet, Ridge
scaled rattail
Crozet, Grey
petrel, Whitechinned petrel
Red
(2.16, 2.05)
Red
(1.41)
Yellownose skate
Red
(2.16, 2.16)
Red
(1)
Yellow
(2.24)
AVOID
(1.62)
Red
(2.16)
Corals and
biogenic habitat
Yellow
(2.71, 2.71)
Red
(1.73)
Yellow
(2.74)
AVOID
(2.3)
The Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and Antarctic toothfish (D. mawsoni) are
demersal species with circumpolar distributions in the southern hemisphere. Distributions of
these two species overlap in some areas, with the Patagonian species tending to occur further
north. Fisheries targeting these species are focused in the Southern Ocean including around
Antarctica and in waters inside and outside various state exclusive economic zones. This report
evaluates, according to Seafood Watch definitions and criteria, fisheries representing almost
78% of the total reported global landings of these two species in 2010 (contributions of each
4
stock to total harvest follow in parentheses). Stocks of Patagonian toothfish are harvested
primarily using longline methods in waters around South Georgia (~9%), Heard and McDonald
Islands (~8%), Kerguelen (~21%) and Crozet Islands (~3%), Prince Edward and Marion Islands
(~0.5%), Macquarie Island (~1.0%), the Falkland Islands (~5%), and Chile (~19%). The Antarctic
toothfish is harvested in the Ross Sea (~12%) using longlines. Fisheries outside these areas
include research fisheries encompassed in the CAMLR Convention Area or domestic fisheries
for which insufficient information was available to conduct an assessment.
Patagonian toothfish is ranked as best choice for the fishery around Heard and McDonald
Islands (bottom longline), the Falkland Islands (bottom longline), and Macquarie Island
(bottom longline). This species is ranked as a good alternative when sourced from South
Georgia (bottom longline) and Kerguelen Islands (bottom longline). Patagonian toothfish
from Crozet Islands (bottom longline), Prince Edward and Marion Islands (bottom longline),
and Chile (bottom longline) are ranked as avoid. Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish (bottom
longline) is ranked as a good alternative.
Four toothfish fishery areas have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council
(www.msc.org): South Georgia, Heard and McDonald Islands, Macquarie Island, and the Ross
Sea. The fisheries around the Kerguelen Islands have been under assessment since 2009, and
the Falkland Islands fishery entered the assessment process in August 2012.
5
Table of Contents
Final Seafood Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ......................................................................................22
Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks ....................................................................................32
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ..................................................................................................................56
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem ................................................................................................81
Overall Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 91
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 93
References .................................................................................................................................................. 94
Appendix A: Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Article 2 .............. 101
Appendix B: Review Schedule ................................................................................................................... 102
About Seafood Watch® ............................................................................................................................. 103
Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................... 104
6
Executive Summary
This report evaluates the status of Patagonian (Dissostichus eleginoides) and Antarctic
(Dissostichus mawsoni) toothfish fisheries. Fisheries targeting these species are focused in the
Southern Ocean including around Antarctica and in waters inside and outside various state
exclusive economic zones (EEZs). This assessment reflects approximately 78% of reported global
toothfish catch, including the following fishing areas: Macquarie Island, Heard and McDonald
Islands, South Georgia, the Falkland Islands, Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, Prince Edward and
Marion Islands, Chile, and the Ross Sea (Table 1). Fisheries at Heard and McDonald Islands have
historically used both demersal trawl and demersal longline methods, but the trawl fishery is
being phased out; therefore, this assessment focuses only on the longline fishery. Other
fisheries assessed here deploy demersal longlines. Fisheries in each of these areas are managed
as spatially discrete units with separate catch allocations, stock assessments etc. While
management is conducted on an area basis, stock structure is known only broadly and is still an
active area of research; for instance, investigations of stock boundaries and identification of
straddling stocks are underway around the Kerguelen, Heard and McDonald Islands (SC-CAMLR
2011). The findings of this work will inform future management and increase the robustness of
management approaches.
Stock assessments are available for almost all fisheries assessed in this report. Most toothfish
stock assessments use CASAL. Based on stock assessment models, stocks around South Georgia,
Heard and McDonald Islands, Macquarie Island, and the Falkland Islands are abundant, with
median biomass at levels above the target reference point (Bcurrent> 50% B0). The Ross Sea stock
is also above the reference point, but there is greater uncertainty about the stock structure.
Around Kerguelen, a preliminary stock assessment exists and has been applied to management
for 2012/13, but this assessment requires improvement prior to utilization for longer term
management. For the Prince Edward and Marion Islands fishery, the stock has been recognized
as depleted and is under conservative management. Its future trajectory is uncertain. Around
Crozet, no accepted peer-reviewed stock assessment is currently available, which is considered
a high concern due to the high vulnerability of the species. The domestic Chilean fishery has
been assessed as being overfished.
In the fisheries assessed here, bycatch comprised 1–26% of the total catch weight (~75–6,400 t)
for Patagonian toothfish fisheries and 8% of the total catch weight (~2,500–3,400 t) for the
single Antarctic toothfish fishery. Bycatch of most species comprised less than 5% of the catch.
However, the high inherent vulnerability of most bycaught species is expected to render them
particularly sensitive to fisheries impacts. Species accounting for more than 5% of catch
included violet cod (Antimora rostrata) (Crozet Islands), Macrourus species—including ridge
scaled rattail (Macrourus carinatus) and bigeye grenadier (Macrourus holotrachys)—in all areas
except South Georgia, rajids at Kerguelen and Crozet, and the whiteleg skate at Crozet. For
white-chinned (Procellaria aequinoctialis) and grey (Procellaria cinerea) petrels, past impacts in
two fisheries (Kerguelen and Crozet Islands) have been severe. Bycatch has decreased
substantially in recent years, and data available in the near future is expected to clarify whether
7
the population status of these species has improved. Threatened or endangered species
captured in toothfish fisheries include black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris),
grey-headed albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma), rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes
chrysocome), white-chinned petrel, yellownose skate (Zearaja chilensis) and the porbeagle
shark (Lamna nasus). Several other bycaught rajids and sharks are classified as near threatened
or data deficient. Most of these species are caught in very low numbers. Cetaceans and
pinnipeds are rarely caught. The population status of benthic invertebrates and biogenic
habitat-forming organisms, such as corals, are not well known in many areas used by fisheries
considered in this assessment, although data collection is underway in most fisheries (albeit
often not at the species level). Overlap between fishing activity and these organisms has been
reported, and they were scored in accordance with the ‘Unknown bycatch matrix’. Limited
information is available on the productivity and population structure of most bycatch species.
Therefore, ongoing monitoring and research (underway in most fisheries) is important to
ensure sustainability limits are not exceeded.
Considerable amounts of both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent information are
available with which to manage the harvest of both Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish. Most
fisheries are exploited with reference to stock assessments; management targets and policies
vary between fisheries. Non-target retained species caught at levels greater than 5% of the
catch include ridge scaled rattail at Kerguelen and Crozet, and whiteleg skate at Crozet. Nontarget retained species caught at levels comprising less than 5% of catch include whiteleg skate
at Kerguelen, Eaton’s skate (Bathyraja eatonii) and Kerguelen sandpaper skate (Bathyraja
irrasa) in the Kerguelen and Crozet fisheries, unicorn icefish (Channichthys rhinoceratus) and
grey rockcod (Lepidonotothen squamifrons) in the Heard and McDonald fisheries, and grey
rockcod at Macquarie. The stock statuses of retained skates are unknown. Unicorn icefish and
grey rockcod at Heard and McDonald are harvested in accordance with catch limits set using
stock assessments. All toothfish fisheries assessed here have monitoring procedures in place,
which facilitates the development of science advice and enforcement of management
measures.
Management of bycatch focuses on documenting and minimizing bycatch through measures
such as catch limits and move-on rules. In addition, mitigation measures have been
implemented to reduce bycatch, including captures of seabirds and marine mammals. Bycatch
reduction measures deployed to reduce seabird and marine mammal captures have proven
effective. Reductions in fish bycatch as a result of measures such as move-on rules are not well
understood but observers monitor bycatch thoroughly in most fisheries. Quantitative
assessments of most bycatch stocks are generally unavailable, however, population monitoring
for some species of seabirds is ongoing and tagging programs have been implemented for
skates in some fisheries.
Fisheries have minimal to strong mitigation in place to ameliorate benthic impacts, depending
on the fishery area. CCAMLR has an active work program on vulnerable marine ecosystems and
marine protected areas. Measures in place that reduce the impacts of bottom fishing include
limits on fishing intensity (number of vessels and catch), gear modifications (e.g., reduced-
8
contact bottom longline gear), and significant efforts in spatial management. A diversity of
ecosystem management measures is also in place across toothfish fisheries. In all fisheries
assessed here, work is currently underway to improve management of benthic and ecosystem
impacts. This work is particularly important given the assumptions made about the role of
toothfish in its ecosystem when developing management approaches for target catch harvest.
These assumptions must be appropriate to ensure effective management of fishing effects.
Four toothfish fishery areas have recently been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council
(www.msc.org): South Georgia (longline), Heard and McDonald Islands (trawl and longline),
Macquarie Island, and the Ross Sea (longline). The demersal longline fisheries around the
Kerguelen Islands have been under assessment since 2009, and the Falkland Islands fishery
entered the assessment process in August 2012.
This report takes a precautionary approach in cases of scientific uncertainty. The existence of
toothfish fisheries is controversial for a variety of reasons. These include the lack of knowledge
of some aspects of the species’ life history and ecology, its stock structure, and its vulnerability
to overexploitation (including past and current illegal harvests). Consequently, scrutiny of
fishing activities, emergent data, and management regimes is expected to remain high. Such
interest from a variety of stakeholders will contribute to the identification of any emerging
conservation issues.
9
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
This report evaluates the status of Patagonian (Dissostichus eleginoides) and Antarctic (Dissostichus
mawsoni) toothfish fisheries. Fisheries targeting these species are focused in the Southern Ocean
including around Antarctica and in waters inside and outside various state exclusive economic zones
(EEZs). This assessment reflects approximately 78% of reported global toothfish catch, including the
following fishing areas: Macquarie Island, Heard and McDonald Islands, South Georgia, the Falkland
Islands, Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, Prince Edward and Marion Islands, Chile, and the Ross Sea (Table
1). Fisheries at Heard and McDonald Islands have historically used both demersal trawl and demersal
longline methods. However, the demersal trawl fishery is being phased out. It currently consists of only
one vessel, which is being replaced by a longliner this season (2013), so there will no longer be any
toothfish trawling in the HIMI fishery (M. Exel, pers comm, March 21, 2013). Therefore, this assessment
focuses only on the longline fishery. Other fisheries assessed here deploy demersal longlines. Fisheries
in each of these areas are managed as spatially discrete units with separate catch allocations, stock
assessments etc. While management is conducted on an area basis, stock structure is known only
broadly and is still an active area of research: investigations of stock boundaries and identification of
straddling stocks are still underway around Kerguelen and Heard and McDonald Islands (SC-CAMLR
2011). The findings of this work will inform future management and increase the robustness of
management approaches.
Table 1. Summary of toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) catches reported by fishery for fisheries included in this
assessment. Catch statistics are estimated live weight (tonnes) of landings, from CCAMLR (2012, Table 14, p. 242)
(except for the Prince Edward and Marion Islands marked *, for which catch statistics were drawn from SC-CAMLR
+
(2011)), ˆ = total catch (tonnes) from Falkland Islands Government (2012), = total catch (tonnes) from Fay (2011),
#
= total catch (tonnes) from Gálvez et al. (2011). Management areas are shown in parentheses: SSA = CCAMLR
Statistical Subarea. Between fisheries (especially outside CCAMLR SSAs), the start and end dates of fishing years
may vary, but the majority falls in the calendar year 2010.
___________________________________________________________________________
Fisheries included in this assessment
Catch (tons)
___________________________________________________________________________
South Georgia (SSA 48.3)
2491
Kerguelen Islands (SSA 58.5.1)
5751
Heard and McDonald Islands (SSA 58.5.2)
2141
Crozet Islands (SSA 58.6)
819
Prince Edward and Marion Islands (SSA 58.6, 58.7*)
150
Falkland Islandsˆ
1403
+
Macquarie Island
278
Chilean Exclusive Economic Zone (and adjacent high seas)#
4757 (537)
Ross Sea (SSA 88.1, 88.2)
3322
___________________________________________________________________________
The total of reported global landings of toothfish in 2010 comprised approximately 27,904
tonnes estimated live weight (CCAMLR 2012).
Species overview
10
Antarctic toothfish
Toothfish are members of the Notothenidae family. The Antarctic toothfish has a circumpolar
distribution. While there is overlap with the distribution of the Patagonian toothfish in some
areas (see below), the Antarctic toothfish occurs to the south of the Antarctic Convergence in
areas of higher latitude. Population structure is an area of active research. The total number of
stocks is currently unknown, and movements of up to 2,300 km have been detected. Genetic
differentiation has been identified between the Ross Sea and the Bellinghausen Sea while only
weak differences were identified in comparisons between the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic
Oceans (Hanchet 2006). Antarctic toothfish have been caught at depths from ~280–2210 m,
and fish size generally increases with depth (Hanchet 2006; Hanchet 2010). Knowledge of
population, stock structure and reproductive patterns is improving due to ongoing research
(e.g., Hanchet et al. 2008a; A. Dunn, personal communication). Antarctic toothfish are thought
to be mature at lengths over 135 cm. Spawning is thought to occur annually, though individual
fish are considered unlikely to spawn every year. Relative fecundity has been estimated at 15–
41 eggs per gram of body weight. The age to which 1% of fish survive is estimated to be 35
years. The species is predatory and forages on fish, cephalopods, mysids, and amphipods.
Natural predators include cetaceans and pinnipeds. Penguins have been found to consume
juvenile toothfish. Predators of eggs and larvae are unknown (Hanchet 2006; Hanchet 2010).
Patagonian toothfish
The Patagonian toothfish is generally found further north than the Antarctic toothfish, including
on the southern shelves and slopes off South America and around the sub-Antarctic islands
(Collins et al. 2010). Genetic analyses, stables isotopes and parasite faunas have all been used
to examine population structure and connectivity. The collective results of this work identify
separate populations in the western Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Patagonian/Chilean Shelf,
and Macquarie Island (Collins et al. 2010). Spawning occurs annually, although every fish likely
does not spawn every year. Females mature at around 110–130 cm, while males mature at 90–
100 cm. Longevity varies between regions with estimates of approximately 30–55 years, and
maturity occurs at around half maximum length. Patagonian toothfish occupy a range of
bathymetric zones throughout their life cycle, from shallower depths when young (< 300 m
until 6–7 years old) to deeper waters as adults (as deep as 2,500 m) to spawning at around
1,000 m (Collins et al. 2010). Genetic analysis shows that while Patagonian toothfish have a
broad circumpolar distribution, populations can be extremely isolated (Collins et al. 2010). The
diet of Patagonian toothfish changes ontogenetically, and the species forages both by
scavenging and as a predator. Natural predators include cetaceans and pinnipeds. Predators of
eggs and larval Patagonian toothfish are not well known (Collins, M.A. et al. 2010).
While knowledge of these species continues to grow, important gaps remain in understanding
the connectivity of populations, certain aspects of reproductive biology, the distribution of
eggs, and aspects of the larval and juvenile components of the species’ life histories. The
species is relatively long lived and slow growing and some of the fisheries targeting them have
developed relatively recently. These factors contribute to the value of particularly cautious
11
management approaches as well as continued research and monitoring to ensure the
sustainability of toothfish fisheries in the long term.
Management bodies
Legal toothfish fishing around Antarctica is managed under the Convention on the Conservation
of Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR, www.ccamlr.org), or outside the CAMLR Convention Area
by states (e.g., the domestic toothfish fisheries of Australia and Chile). Some fishing areas inside
the CAMLR Convention Area are also within the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of member
states and are influenced by both domestic and CCAMLR measures. CCAMLR entered into force
in 1982.The Convention applies to a defined area approximately delineated as south of 60 oS
and between 60oS and the Antarctic Convergence (Figure 1). There are currently 25 members
and an additional 10 states are party to the Convention. The management approach utilized by
CCAMLR includes regulations (Conservation Measures), scientific observation, monitoring,
inspection, surveillance, reporting requirements, and a catch documentation scheme. This
scheme continues to evolve and is recognized as current global best practice in this area
(Clarke, MRAG 2010). Mislabeling of toothfish has been reported (Marko et al. 2011), though
not substantiated (www.msc.org). A past analysis of the global toothfish trade found difficulty
converting traded forms of toothfish back to live catch weights (Lack 2008). Article II of the
Convention articulates CCAMLR’s approach to management (see: www.ccamlr.org, Appendix
B).
Inside EEZ boundaries that fall outside the CAMLR Convention Area, only state fishery
management measures apply to the harvest of toothfish. However, CCAMLR Resolutions 10/XII
and 18/XXI relate to management of stocks outside the Convention Area, urging (while not
requiring) states to harmonize management measures across Convention Area boundaries.
Outside CCAMLR and EEZ boundaries, relevant management instruments include the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Furthermore, the requirements of the CCAMLR
Catch Documentation Scheme apply to all toothfish harvested and traded by CCAMLR
Contracting Parties and cooperating non-Contracting Parties, regardless of whether fishing
occurred inside or outside the Convention Area. Contracting Parties’ vessels also complete
catch documentation when fishing on the high seas (CCAMLR Conservation Measure 10-05).
Specific import regulations apply in the United States. These require that harvesting vessels to
report Vessel Monitoring System data to CCAMLR on a port-to-port basis (i.e., the entire
duration of the fishing trip) in order for import permission to be granted (Federal Register
2010). US importers are also required to hold a permit to import Antarctic Marine Living
Resources, as well as to obtain a valid pre-approval certificate for each shipment of toothfish
proposed for import into the USA (see: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/gpea_ forms/forms.htm). Finally,
the USA also prohibits the import of toothfish caught in certain high seas areas outside the
CAMLR Convention Area (FAO Areas 51 and 57, Federal Register 2003, 2007). This regulatory
framework has significantly reduced IUU fishing and includes global best practice measures
(e.g., the catch documentation scheme, Clarke, MRAG 2010). However, IUU activity still occurs
12
(such as on the high seas), and IUU products may be sold into markets that do not require the
measures in place in the legal fisheries assessed here (see below; CCAMLR 2011).
Figure 1. The CAMLR Convention Area and locations of fisheries referred to in the text (source: www.ccamlr.org).
Catch statistics and history of the fishery
Toothfish were initially caught as a bycatch species in trawl fisheries but became a target
species in the mid-1980s after deepwater longlining was developed. Subsequently, operations
targeting toothfish expanded rapidly. From 1983 to 1992, legally landed catch increased from
less than 5000 t to a peak of 40,000 t. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
operations, which take unknown amounts of toothfish, are thought to have commenced in the
early 1990s (Collins et al. 2010). Toothfish are currently taken predominantly using demersal
longline and demersal trawl methods. In addition to the legal, reported catch described above,
an illegal, unreported and unregulated fishery for toothfish persists (e.g., CCAMLR 2011a).
Catch histories, including estimates of IUU removals, for fisheries assessed in this report follow
(Figures 2–10). IUU exploitation of toothfish is known to have been particularly significant in
some areas in the past (e.g., Prince Edward and Marion Islands, Kerguelen and Crozet Islands,
and Heard Island; see below). Implementation of a catch documentation scheme (see above),
along with surveillance monitoring, has greatly reduced IUU activity (Lack 2008). Residual IUU
fishing is believed to occur largely using gillnets in areas outside those utilized by the fisheries
assessed here (e.g., CCAMLR statistical subareas 58.4.1, 58.4.2, 58.4.4, SC-CAMLR 2011;
CCAMLR 2011a). However, in the fisheries assessed here, little or no IUU activity has been
detected in the last five years with the exception of Chilean waters, for which information on
IUU was not available. Estimates of toothfish catches and landings resulting from IUU fishing
activities are inevitably imprecise and vary widely between years and methods of calculation.
For example, Table 2 shows estimates resulting from two methods of calculation. Lack (2008)
estimated landings of whole toothfish based on the volume of toothfish products traded
globally. Key issues that may limit the accuracy of this analysis include proportion of product
consumed domestically (and therefore not entering into international trade), reporting
toothfish products under generic codes, access to data, complexity of the trade chain, and the
potential for counting toothfish products more than once (Lack 2008). By comparison, CCAMLR
figures are estimated using information on IUU vessel activity including sightings of IUU vessels,
estimated duration of IUU fishing trips, number of IUU fishing trips, and the likely toothfish
catch rate (SC-CAMLR 2006). The large areas of ocean inhabited by toothfish make the total
elimination of all IUU activity unlikely. However, the variability in vulnerability of different areas
to IUU activity is recognized (SC-CAMLR 2006). In the past, CCAMLR has estimated IUU catches
from within its convention area each year. However, the expansion of gillnet usage in IUU
activities in recent years renders estimates of IUU catch based on longline catch per unit effort
metrics inappropriate. Methods for improving IUU estimates are currently under investigation
(e.g., SC-CAMLR 2011).
As the quality and sustainability of harvesting practices can vary significantly between operators
and areas, traceability is particularly important for fisheries catching these species. Measures
are extensive, as described above, and include additional chain of custody traceability
assessments in MSC-certified fisheries.
15
Table 2. Estimates of toothfish catches (tonnes, liveweight) resulting from illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing activities (sources: SC-CAMLR 2010; WWF/TRAFFIC = Lack, M. 2008).
____________________________________________________________________________
Year
SC-CAMLR
WWF/TRAFFIC
Catch estimate of IUU
Trade estimate of IUU catch
D. eleginoides
D. mawsoni
Both species
_____________________________________________________________________________
2003
7324
98
1380
2004
1744
434
6529
2005
1448
1135
8682
2006
714
2706
4473
2007
1609
3091
5671
2008
1303
409
2009
88
850
2010
133
1482
__________________________________________________________________
16
8000
7000
6000
5000
Reported catch
(tonnes)
4000
IUU (tonnes)
3000
Total (tonnes)
2000
1000
2008/09
2006/07
2004/05
2002/03
2000/01
1998/99
1996/97
1994/95
1992/93
1990/91
1988/89
1986/87
1984/85
0
Figure 2. Catch history of the South Georgia toothfish fishery (tonnes caught by year, for the legal, IUU, and total
catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
14000
12000
Reported
longline catch
(tonnes)
Reported trawl
catch (tonnes)
10000
8000
6000
IUU (tonnes)
4000
Total (tonnes)
2000
2009/10
2007/08
2005/06
2003/04
2001/02
1999/2000
1997/98
1995/96
1993/94
1991/92
1989/90
1987/88
0
Figure 3. Catch history of the Kerguelen Islands toothfish fishery (tonnes caught by year, for the longline, trawl,
IUU, and total catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
17
14000
12000
10000
Reported
catch (tonnes)
8000
IUU (tonnes)
6000
Total (tonnes)
4000
2000
1976/77
1977/78
1982/83
1986/87
1987/88
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
0
Figure 4. Catch history of the Crozet Islands toothfish fishery (tonnes caught by year, by legal and IUU fishing, and
total catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Reported longline
catch (tonnes)
Reported trawl
catch (tonnes)
IUU (tonnes)
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
2002/03
2001/02
2000/01
1999/00
1998/99
1997/98
1996/97
Total (tonnes)
Figure 5. Catch history of the Heard and McDonald Islands toothfish fishery (tonnes caught by year, for the
longline, trawl, IUU, and total catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
18
10000
9000
8000
Reported
catch
(tonnes)
7000
6000
IUU
(tonnes)
5000
4000
3000
Total
(tonnes)
2000
1000
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
2002/03
2001/02
2000/01
1999/00
1998/99
1997/98
1996/97
1995/96
0
Figure 6. Catch history of the Prince Edward and Marion Islands toothfish fishery (CCAMLR subareas 58.6, 58.7;
tonnes caught by year, for the legal, IUU, and total catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
2500
Longline
catch
(tonnes)
2000
1500
Trawl catch
(tonnes)
1000
Total
(tonnes)
500
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0
Figure 7. Catch history of the Falklands toothfish fishery (tonnes caught by year, for the longline, trawl, and total
catches. Note this fishery is now comprised of one longline vessel (data from Falkland Islands Government 2012).
19
18000
16000
EEZ Chilean catch
(tonnes)
14000
12000
10000
Chilean catch in
adjacent
international
waters (tonnes)
8000
6000
4000
2000
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
0
Figure 8. Catch history of the Chilean toothfish fishery (total tonnes caught by year) (data from Gálvez et al. 2011).
500
450
400
350
300
250
Reported catch
(tonnes)
200
150
100
50
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
0
Figure 9. Recent catch in of the Macquarie Island toothfish fishery (total tonnes caught by year) (data from AFMA
2012a).
20
3500
3000
2500
2000
Reported catch
(tonnes)
1500
IUU (tonnes)
1000
Total (tonnes)
500
0
Figure 10. Catch history of the Ross sea toothfish fishery (D. mawsoni, tonnes caught by year, for the legal, IUU,
and total catches) (data from SC-CAMLR 2011).
Importance to the US/North American market
Although not currently active in the toothfish fishery, the United States imports toothfish for
domestic consumption and also re-exports it to a number of destinations, especially Chile,
Canada, Japan, and Korea (Table 3).
Table 3. Imports and exports of toothfish into and out of the United States (tonnes, processed weight) by calendar
year (Source: CCAMLR 2012).
_____________________________________________________________________
Year Imports
Exports
Export destinations, amounts (tonnes, processed weight)
_____________________________________________________________________
2005 11380
69
Canada (54), Japan (13), Hong Kong (2)
2006 9411
86
Canada (45), Chile (27), Korea (14),
United Arab Emirates (< 1), Japan (< 1)
2007 10175
44
Chile (29), Russia (9), Canada (6),
United Arab Emirates (< 1), United Kingdom (< 1)
2008 9075
166
Chile (64), Japan (48), Korea (34), Canada (17),
United Arab Emirates (3), Netherlands (< 1),
United Kingdom (< 1)
2009 8954
114
Hong Kong (81), Chile (17), Canada (11), United
Kingdom (4), Japan (1), Netherlands Antilles (< 1),
Commonwealth of the Bahamas (< 1), Cayman
Islands (< 1), St Kitts and Nevis (< 1), Trinidad and
Tobago (< 1)
21
2010 8158
68
Chile (24), Canada (21), Uruguay (13), Dominican
Republic (10), Netherlands Antilles (< 1), Antigua (< 1),
Bahamas (< 1), Cayman Islands (< 1), Denmark (< 1),
France (< 1), Trinidad and Tobago (< 1), Turkey (< 1)
2011 7859
106
Canada (51), Chile (17), Japan (17), Korea (16),
United Arab Emirates (4), Antigua and Barbuda (< 1),
Bahamas (< 1), Cayman Islands (< 1), Dominican Republic
(1), France (< 1), Netherlands Antilles (< 1), St Kitts and
Nevis (< 1), Trinidad and Tobago (< 1),United Kingdom (<
1)
_____________________________________________________________________
Common and market names
Toothfish are commonly marketed in the United States as Chilean sea bass or Chilean seabass.
Another less frequently used (English language) name is white cod (Froese and Pauly 2012;
CCAMLR Identification Guide).
Primary product forms
Toothfish are typically processed aboard fishing vessels. Depending on the market, they may be
chilled, fresh or frozen, gutted and filleted, or processed into the following cuts: cheeks, collars,
heads, or ‘headed, gutted and tailed’ (Lack 2008; CCAMLR Identification Guide).
22
Analysis
Scoring guide


All scores result in a zero to five final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A
zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of five indicates high performance.
The full Seafood Watch Fisheries Criteria that the following scores relate to are available
on our website at www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation
Guiding principles


The stock is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure
should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long-term productivity of the stock
or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web.
Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any
marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and
inherent resilience to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management
uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.
Stock
Crozet Island
Patagonian
Toothfish
Falkland
Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish
Heard and
McDonald
Patagonian
Toothfish
Kerguelen
Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish
Fishery
Crozet
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Falkland Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Heard and
McDonald Island
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Kerguelen
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock status
Fishing
mortality
Criterion 1
Rank
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
High
High concern
(2)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Red
(2.16)
High
Very low
concern
(5)
Very low
concern
(5)
Green
(5)
High
Very low
concern
(5)
Very low
concern
(5)
Green
(5)
High
Low concern
(4)
Low concern
(3.67)
Green
(3.83)
23
Macquarie
Patagonian
Toothfish
Ross Sea
Antarctic
Toothfish
Macquarie Island
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Ross Sea
Antarctic
Toothfish –
Longline
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
Green
(5)
High
Low concern
(4)
Low concern
(3.67)
Green
(3.83)
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
High
Very low
concern
(5)
Very low
concern
(5)
Green
(5)
Chile
Patagonian
Toothfish
Chile Domestic
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
High
High concern
(2)
High concern
(1)
Red
(1.41)
PE & MI
Patagonian
Toothfish
Prince Edward
and Marion
Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
High
High concern
(2)
Moderate
concern (2.33)
Red
(2.16)
Justification of ranking
Factor 1.1. Inherent vulnerability: High vulnerability
Key relevant information:
Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish are classified by FishBase as having high vulnerability
(Froese and Pauly 2012).
Factor 1.2. Stock status
Stock assessment outputs and associated Seafood Watch rankings are summarized below
(Table 4). Most toothfish stock assessments use CASAL (Bull et al. 2012). CASAL is a generalized
24
stock assessment model that includes options allowing for the implementation of age- or sexstructured models, single or multiple stocks, single or multiple areas, and maximum likelihood
or Bayesian estimation. For all fisheries utilizing stock assessment models, these parameters are
updated annually. For fisheries under the CAMLR Convention, decision rules are such that the
lower yield of the following two options (i or ii) is implemented in the management approach:
(i) the probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation
level over a 35-year harvesting period is 10%, or (ii) the median escapement in the spawning
stock biomass (SSB) over a 35-year period is 50% of the median pre-exploitation level at the end
of the projection period (Constable et al. 2000). Constable et al. (2000) also describe the
development of these decision rules and the assumptions inherent in them (e.g., regarding the
ecological role of toothfish). Stocks in most areas are estimated to be above or close to their
target levels.
IUU harvest, as estimated by CCAMLR, is included in the catch histories used in stock
assessment models (SC-CAMLR 2011). The size and age distributions of catches are also
reported annually for CCAMLR fisheries, allowing the detection of cohorts through time. Data
included in assessments of toothfish stocks includes catch history, catch characteristics, survey
results, and tagging data (e.g., SC-CAMLR 2011). Predation by cetaceans on hooked toothfish is
a significant issue in some areas (particularly in Kerguelen and Crozet) but can be incorporated
into stock assessment models (e.g., South Georgia, SC-CAMLR 2011).
Some fisheries outside the CAMLR Convention Area use the same reference points as described
above (e.g., Macquarie Island). An exception is the Chilean domestic fishery, for which the
management target is 30% of ‘virgin’ spawning stock biomass (using 1987 as the reference
year).
For toothfish fisheries in this assessment, and with reference to the Seafood Watch criteria, a
target reference point of Bcurrent/B0 or SSBcurrent/SSB0 > 0.5 was applied. Uncertainties in
conclusions drawn from stock assessment outputs arise from factors including changes in
fishing fleet structure and gear, assumptions about recruitment, population structure, and the
quality of tagging datasets. The size of captured fish has been noted to vary over time (e.g., in
South Georgia, where fish weights and sizes decreased between 1995 and 1999, then
subsequently increased; Kirkwood and Agnew 2001; SC-CAMLR 2004). Work in these areas
continues (see below).
25
Table 4. Summary of stock assessment findings and Seafood Watch criteria. ‘Future work’ (underway in most
cases) indicates recommended next steps for stock assessments, drawn from the references shown.
Stock / fishery Bcurrent/B0 or
Source
SSBcurrent/SSB0
South Georgia
0.53 (95% CI:
Future work
SFW
criteria
assessment
Very low
concern
SC-CAMLR 2011
 Examination of
historical changes in
fleet selectivity
Candy and
Welsford 2009;
Candy and
Constable 2008;
Lack et al. 2012;
D. Welsford and
M. Haddon,
personal
communications
 Re-estimation of the
von Bertalanffy growth
function using new data
 Simplification of spatial
structure of fishing
selectivity functions
 Investigation of a twosex approach
 Inclusion of tagging
data to assist
estimation of model
parameters
 Consideration of stock
relationship with
adjacent fisheries
Very low
concern
0.49 – 0.56)
Heard and
McDonald
Islands
0.63
Macquarie
Island
~0.70
0.58 – 0.72
See text
below
Fay 2011
Fay et al. 2011
M. Haddon,
personal
communication
 Estimation of
movement parameters
 Investigation of
sensitivities, e.g.,
assumptions regarding
mortality, growth,
recruitment
 Investigation of
uncertainty in spatial
parameter estimation
Very low
concern
Prince Edward
and Marion
Islands
See text
below
SC-CAMLR 2007
SC-CAMLR 2011
Leslie, R. personal
communication
 Continue data
collection underway to
facilitate future
modeling efforts
High
concern
0.61 – 0.65
26
Crozet Islands
See text
below
SC-CAMLR 2011
 Continuation of tagging
program and data
collection to allow stock
assessment in future
 Estimation of toothfish
biological parameters
High
concern
Kerguelen
Islands
0.62–0.67
See text
below
Rélot-Stirnemann
2011; SC-CAMLR
2012; See below
 Continuation of tagging
program and relevant
data collection to
increase body of data
available for modeling
 Verification of data
used in modeling
 Interpretation of CPUE
data and influence of
IUU fishing
 Biomass estimates
 Consideration of stock
relationship with
adjacent fisheries
Low
concern
Chile
0.18 – 0.38
See text
below
Zuleta and Hopf
2010;
Subsecretaria de
Pesca 2011
 Investigate recruitment
uncertainty
 Continue and expand
quantification of catch
characteristics
 Investigate spatial
dynamics, including
relationship with
Argentinean fishery
 Investigate selectivity
 Continue data
collection given gear
changes from 2006:
deployment of
cachalotera and change
in soak time
 Data collection and
verification to improve
rigor of modeling
High
concern
27
Falkland
Islands
0.56
See text
below
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
0.80
(95% CI:
0.78 – 0.82)
See text
below
Laptikhovsky et al.
2012
 Continue investigation
of the new modeling
approach now in use
for this fishery,
especially given
declines in SSB
Very low
concern
SC-CAMLR 2011
 Refine method for
selection of high quality
tagging datasets
 Use simulation
evaluation methods to
investigate the
robustness of different
assessment methods
for achieving
CCAMLR’s objectives
Low
concern
Macquarie Island Patagonian toothfish
Differences in the ratios of Bcurrent/B0 arise from the spatial structure of models, i.e., delineation
of modelled areas (Fay 2011; Fay et al. 2011). The Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock
status as a very low concern.
Prince Edward and Marion Islands Patagonian toothfish
There are indications that the stock in this area was extremely depleted by IUU fishing prior to
the mid-1990s, such that the biomass remaining was at most a few percent of the preexploitation levels (Brandão et al. 2002). An exploratory model, constructed with parameters
derived from toothfish in other parts of the CAMLR Convention Area but applied to this fishery,
concluded that the spawning biomass of Patagonian toothfish was estimated to be at 37% of its
average pre-exploitation level (SC-CAMLR 2007). Recent gear changes in this fishery render
historic data of limited utility in determining catch per unit effort and stock trajectories.
Consequently, an Operational Management Procedure has been derived in lieu of a stock
assessment; it is currently in revision. Development of this procedure has focused on catch
levels needed to ensure economic rather than biological viability (Brandão and Butterworth
2009). However, total allowable catch levels in this area continue to be low (SC-CAMLR 2011).
The modal value of catch-weighted length frequency distributions has increased in the years
since 2005; most toothfish are 50–120 cm in length (modal length ~ 60–90 cm) (SC-CAMLR
2011). Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock status as a high concern.
28
Crozet Islands Patagonian toothfish
No stock assessment has been carried out in this area (SC-CAMLR 2011), and the stock
vulnerability is classified as high (see Section 1.1, above). Some variability is evident in lengthfrequency distributions of fish caught. The modal sizes of fish caught in recent seasons are 55–
80 cm, compared to 70–80 cm in length in the mid-1990s. Most fish caught are 50–120 cm long
(SC-CAMLR 2011). Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock status as a high concern.
Kerguelen Islands Patagonian toothfish
An assessment agreed to by CCAMLR has been completed for application to management in
2012/13. Modelling work conducted using CASAL has generated an estimated ratio for
SSB2011/B0 of 0.62–0.67. Work continues in refining this assessment, which will be reconsidered
by CCAMLR in the future (Rélot-Stirnemann 2011; SC-CAMLR 2012). The catch-weighted lengthfrequency distributions for this fishery show that most fish caught are 40–120 cm in length. The
modal length range has been 60–80 cm in recent seasons, compared to 80–100 cm in the early
years of monitoring (SC-CAMLR 2011). Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock status as a low
concern given the availability of a stock assessment with significant uncertainty.
Chile Patagonian toothfish
Several methods have been used to model this fishery, and outputs of the different models
have varied (Gálvez et al. 2011). The domestic management target for this stock is 30% of SSB0.
Currently, the stock is classified as overfished with a high risk of depletion. The stock is
estimated to be at 18–38% of B0 (Zuleta and Hopf 2010; Subsecretaria de Pesca 2011).
However, it is also considered to have been stable at low abundance for almost 10 years (Zuleta
and Hopf 2010). Depending on the model used, the stock was previously considered to be from
just under 12% B0 to over 20% B0 and showing signs of depletion (Ministerio de Economía,
Fomento y Turismo Subsecretaría de Pesca 2010). This stock is also fished in Argentinean
waters (Gálvez et al. 2011; Zuleta and Rubilar 2011) with the same management target (M.
Exel, personal communication). There are significant uncertainties inherent in the modeling,
from the nature and extent of the data itself through to uncertainty brought about by
assumptions and recent gear changes. Further work is expected to improve this assessment.
Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock status as a high concern.
Falkland Islands Patagonian toothfish
The total biomass of this stock is reported to be increasing (Laptikhovsky et al. 2012) while
spawning stock biomass has declined over time, stabilizing at levels above 50% B0 (V.
Laptokhovsky, personal communication). The model currently in use is new and requires careful
monitoring to ensure it supports delivery on management goals. The ratio of SSBcurrent to SSB0 is
0.56 (Laptikhovsky et al. 2012). Seafood Watch criteria identify the stock status as a very low
concern.
Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish
Controversy around the stock assessment model for the Ross Sea has highlighted the model’s
usage of fishery-dependent data. Ongoing information collection includes fishery-dependent
data and fishery-independent data such as a pre-recruit research survey conducted in 2011/12
29
(Conservation Measure 41-09; SC-CAMLR 2011), and a second survey planned for 2012/13 (SCCAMLR 2012). The model has been scrutinized and ultimately accepted by a variety of stock
assessment experts (it is annually reviewed at meetings of CCAMLR’s Fish Stock Assessment
Working Group (SC-CAMLR 2011) and as part of the process resulting in Marine Stewardship
Council certification (Akroyd et al. 2010; Lodge 2010)). Catch-weighted length-frequency
distributions show consistency over recent seasons, and there is no evidence of length
truncation over time. Distributions over time show peak lengths of ~ 75–150 cm (SC-CAMLR
2011). The stock is estimated to be at ~80% of B0 (SC-CAMLR 2011); target biomass for the
fishery is 50% of B0. While a biomass so far above target reference points and so close to virgin
biomass would generally be considered a “very low concern,” there is considerable uncertainty
in this stock assessment, particularly because there are no fishery-independent data and
steepness is unknown, but based on averages for marine teleosts in other parts of the world as
reported in Myers et al. 1999 (Dunn et al. 2006). However, the stock assessment is considered
best available science and there is no evidence suggesting that abundance is actually below
target levels. Uncertainty around stock structure leads to lowering the score for stock status to
a low concern, rather than a very low concern, according to Seafood Watch criteria.
Factor 1.3. Fishing mortality
When values of fishing mortality (F) were available, they were included below. The meaning of
F can be defined as the proportion of total mortality of a fish stock that is accounted for by
fishing (Ministry of Fisheries 2011). However, in most models of toothfish stocks, F is not
calculated for reasons that include the spatial complexity of the models used to describe these
fisheries. Instead, an estimate of the sustainability of harvest can be gleaned from the use of U,
the exploitation rate, i.e., the proportion of recruited or vulnerable biomass caught during a
specified period (Ministry of Fisheries 2011). The value of U is calculated as the maximum
posterior density (MPD) estimate of annual catch divided by the spawning stock biomass.
Where U is less than natural mortality (M), stocks are deemed to be able to support that level
of exploitation (A. Dunn, personal communication).
Table 5. Summary of fishery mortality and Seafood Watch criteria.
Stock / fishery Natural
mortality (M)
South Georgia
0.13
see text
below
Heard and
0.155
Exploitation rate
(U) or fishing
mortality (F)
U: 0.06
Source
SFW
assessment
Collins, M. personal
communication; SCCAMLR 2011
Very low
concern
U: 0.02
SC-CAMLR 2011
Very low
30
McDonald
Islands
Macquarie
Island
Prince Edward
and Marion
Islands
Crozet Islands
Kerguelen
Islands
Chile
Falkland
Islands
concern
0.13
U: 0.05
See text
below
See text
below
0.155
See text
below
0.14
See text
below
0.13
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
0.13
U: 0.04
F: ~0.1
U: 0.09; F = 0.038–
0.042 for 2005–
2011
0.05
Fay 2011
Fay et al. 2011
M. Haddon, personal
communication
Brandão et al. 2002;
Brandão and
Butterworth 2009
SC-CAMLR 2011
Very low
concern
SC-CAMLR 2011
Low
concern
Moderate
concern
Moderate
concern
Rélot-Stirnemann 2011; Low
SC-CAMLR 2012; See
concern
below
Zuleta and Hopf 2010;
High
Subsecretaria de Pesca concern
2011
Laptikhovsky, V.
Very low
personal
concern
communication;
Falkland Islands
Government 2012;
Laptikhovsky et al.
2012
South Georgia Patagonian toothfish
Catch-weighted length frequency distributions for toothfish were variable in the 1980s and
1990s but have stabilized in recent years with a peak at around 75 cm. Seafood Watch criteria
identify fishing mortality as a very low concern.
Heard and McDonald Islands toothfish
Catch-weighted length-frequency distributions for this fishery area show that smaller fish are
caught at shallower depths. The modal size of longline-caught fish is around 75 cm (SC-CAMLR
2011). Seafood Watch criteria identify fishing mortality as a very low concern.
Prince Edward and Marion Islands Patagonian toothfish
Catch limits in this fishery are not currently set according to CAMLR Convention principles, and
attempts to assess the status of the stock have delivered contrary results (Brandão et al. 2002;
31
Brandão and Butterworth 2009). No estimates of F or U are available. This stock meets the
Seafood Watch criteria for a classification of a moderate concern.
Crozet Islands Patagonian toothfish
There is no stock assessment available for this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011), and estimates of F and
U are not available. Consequently, this stock meets the Seafood Watch criteria for a
classification of moderate concern.
Kerguelen Islands Patagonian toothfish
A stock assessment has been accepted to guide management of this fishery for 2012/13.
However, there are uncertainties inherent in the assessment that require resolution prior to its
use for longer-term management (SC-CAMLR 2012). Coincident with the Heard and McDonald
Islands assessments, a value for M of 0.155 was used for this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011). Using
the estimates of SSB produced to date (Rélot-Stirnemann 2011), the exploitation rate was
assessed as 0.04. Given the stock assessment work underway, this fishery is considered a low
concern.
Chile Patagonian toothfish
In 2011, the Subsecretaría de Pesca reported that F>M and that there was a high risk of stock
depletion (Subsecretaría de Pesca 2011). This value of F applies to the industrial fishery only.
Fishery mortality due to the artisanal fishery is unknown. An evaluation of high concern is made
for this fishery.
Ross Sea
Fishery mortality is assessed as a low concern, with some uncertainty around stock structure.
32
Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks
Guiding principles


The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related
mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards,
endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All
discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid
scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of
negative impacts at the population level.
marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’
abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management
uncertainty and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.
South Georgia
Stock
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Grenadiers
High
Skates and
rays
High
High
concern (2)
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Low concern
(3.67)
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Porbeagle
South Georgia
High
High
concern (2)
Very low
concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Antarctic
starry skate
South Georgia
Orca
High
High
concern (2)
Very low
concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
High
Low
concern (4)
Very low
concern (5)
4.47
4.47
Green
33
Elephant seal
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Kerguelen Islands
Stock
Ridge scaled
rattail
Kerguelen
Whitechinned
petrel
Whiteleg
skate
Kerguelen
Grey petrel
High
High
High
concern (2)
High
High
concern (2)
High
High
concern (2)
Raya spp.
High
High
concern (2)
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Low concern
(3.67)
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Rockhopper
penguin
High
High
concern (2)
Very low
concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Giant petrel
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
2.16
2.05
Red
Crozet Islands
Stock
Whiteleg
skate Crozet
High
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
34
Ridge scaled
rattail Crozet
High
High
concern (2)
2.16
2.05
Red
2.16
2.05
Red
2.16
2.05
Red
High
concern (2)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Low concern
(3.67)
Grey petrel
High
High
concern (2)
Whitechinned
petrel
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
High
2.71
2.57
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.57
Yellow
Violet cod
Crozet
High
Low
concern (4)
Low concern
(3.67)
3.83
3.64
Green
Giant petrel
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
4.75
Green
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
Heard and McDonald Islands longline
Stock
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Medium
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Skates and
rays
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Grey-headed
albatross
High
High
concern (2)
Very low
concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Murray's
skate Heard
and
McDonald
Kerguelen
sandpaper
skate
Pacific
sleeper shark
Medium
35
Black-browed
albatross
High
High
concern (2)
Very low
concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Whitson's
grenadier
Heard and
McDonald
Elephant seal
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
Southern
lantern shark
Medium
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Macquarie Island
Stock
Southern
sleeper shark
High
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Falkland Islands
Stock
Antarctic
starry skate
High
White-mouth
skate
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Porbeagle
Falklands
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Joined-fins
skate
Medium
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
36
Multispined
skate
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
White-dotted
skate
Low
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Darkbelly
skate
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Big-eye
grenadier
Falklands
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Ridge scaled
rattail
Falklands
Minke whale
High
Low
concern (4)
Low concern
(3.67)
3.83
3.83
Green
High
4.47
Green
High
Very low
concern (5)
Very low
concern (5)
4.47
Snowy
sheathbill
Low
concern (4)
Very low
concern (5)
5.00
5.00
Green
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
Prince Edward and Marion Islands
Stock
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Corals and
biogenic
habitat
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Grenadiers
PE&MI
High
Low
concern (4)
Low concern
(3.67)
3.83
3.83
Green
Rajids
High
Moderate
concern (3)
Very low
concern (5)
3.87
3.87
Green
37
Chile
Stock
Inherent
vulnerability
Stock
status
Fishing
mortality
Rank
Rank
(score)
High
concern (2)
Rank (score)
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.16
2.16
Red
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Yellownose
skate
High
Piked dogfish
High
High
concern (2)
Thickbody
skate
High
High
concern (2)
Big-eye
grenadier
High
High
concern (2)
Corals and
biogenic
habitat
Ridge scaled
rattail Chile
High
High
concern (2)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Moderate
concern
(2.33)
Low concern
(3.67)
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Benthic
invertebrates
High
High
concern (2)
Low concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Chilean
grenadier
Medium
Moderate
concern (3)
Low concern
(3.67)
3.32
3.32
Green
Banded
whiptail
Medium
Moderate
concern (3)
Low concern
(3.67)
3.32
3.32
Green
Stock
Status
Fishing
Mortality
Subscore
Score
(subscore*discard
modifier)
Rank
(based
on
subscore)
2.16
2.16
Red
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
Stock
Inherent
Vulnerability
Rank
Grenadiers
High
Rank
(Score)
High
Concern
(2)
Rank (Score)
Moderate
Concern
(2.33)
38
Skates and
rays
High
Antarctic
starry skate
Ross Sea
Corals and
biogenic
habitats
Benthic
invertebrates
High
Eaton's skate
Ross Sea
High
MacCain's
skate
High
Whitson's
grenadier
Ross Sea
High
High
High
High
Concern
(2)
High
Concern
(2)
High
Concern
(2)
High
Concern
(2)
High
Concern
(2)
High
Concern
(2)
Low
Concern
(4)
Moderate
Concern
(2.33)
Low Concern
(3.67)
2.16
2.16
Red
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Low Concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Low Concern
(3.67)
2.71
2.71
Yellow
Very Low
Concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Very Low
Concern (5)
3.16
3.16
Yellow
Low Concern
(3.67)
3.83
3.83
Green
39
Justification of Ranking
Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability
Inherent vulnerability assessments were drawn from FishBase for all fish species evaluated here
(www.fishbase.org, Froese, R. and Pauly, D. 2012). For seabirds and marine mammals,
vulnerability was assessed as high as per the Seafood Watch criteria. Bycatch largely comprises
species of high and medium inherent vulnerability and includes some groups that are
recognized as being particularly vulnerable to removal at the population level (e.g., sharks,
skates, rays).
Factor 2.2 Stock status
Where listed by the IUCN (i.e., seabirds, marine mammals, sharks, skates and rays; IUCN 2012),
stock status of bycaught species was classified in accordance with their IUCN status, as required
by the Seafood Watch criteria. Stock or population assessments do not exist for most bycatch
species. Also, species from the most commonly bycaught fish taxa are sometimes reported at
the genus level (e.g., Macrourus spp., Raja spp., CCAMLR 2012). Almost all non-target species
caught in toothfish fisheries are caught at levels comprising less than 5% of the catch (i.e., the
amount guiding Seafood Watch’s identification of a ‘main’ bycatch species. Data from 2008/09
onwards, CCAMLR 2012; Lack et al. 2012; Morison et al. 2012; J. Barton personal
communication; Table 6). The vulnerability of some bycatch species (e.g., skates and rays) to
overexploitation has been considered through assessing species caught at levels comprising
more than 1% of total catch (Table 6). The effects of IUU fishing on bycatch species are not
considered explicitly in this assessment but are recognized as potentially significant (largely in
the past for the fisheries considered here, CCAMLR 1997; CCAMLR 2011a).
40
South Georgia
Species
Stock status
Basis for assessment
Corals and biogenic habitats
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch matrix
Benthic invertebrates
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
When species unidentified, no
information showing stock status
with respect to reference points;
Stock resilience is low (as scored
in Factor 1.1).
CCAMLR 2012
Includes species classified as
threatened by IUCN
IUCN 2012
Porbeagle
Lamna nasus
High concern
Grenadier
Macrourus spp.
High concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
High concern
Antarctic starry skate
Raja georgiana
High concern
Orca
Elephant seal
Orcinus orca
Mirounga leonina
Low concern
Very low concern
IUCN status
IUCN status of Data deficient,
global population estimated at
50,000; Single capture reported
since 2008
IUCN status of Least concern
References
IUCN 2012
SC-CAMLR
2009; IUCN
2o12
IUCN 2012
Macquarie Island
Species
Stock status
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
High concern
IUCN status of Data
deficient
Southern sleeper shark
Somniosus antarcticus
References
IUCN 2012
41
Kerguelen Islands
Species
Stock status
References
High concern
High concern
White-chinned petrel
Procellaria aequinoctialis
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Grey petrel
Procellaria cinerea
High concern
Rays
Raja spp.
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
IUCN status of some species in
this group
IUCN 2012
Skates and rays
Rajiformes
High concern
Ridge scaled rattail
Macrourus carinatus
High concern
IUCN status of some species in
this group
IUCN 2012
No evidence to suggest stock is
above or below reference
points; Unknown and Stock
resilience is low (as scored in
Factor 1.1)
CCAMLR 2012
Whiteleg skate
Raja taaf
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Rockhopper penguin
Eudyptes chrysocome
High concern
IUCN 2012
Giant petrel
Macronectes hallii
Very low concern
IUCN status
IUCN classification of Least
Concern
IUCN 2012
Crozet Islands
Species
Stock status
High concern
High concern
References
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Grey petrel
Procellaria cinerea
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Macrourus carinatus
High concern
Violet cod
Antimora rostrata
Low concern
No evidence to suggest stock is above
or below reference points; Unknown
and Stock resilience is low (as scored in
Factor 1.1)
CCAMLR 2012
Stock is classified as not overfished but
quantitative stock assessment is
lacking; volume of captures: 0.5-86
t/year 2001-2011; circumglobal
CCAMLR 2012; Froese,
distribution
R. and Pauly, D. 2012
Giant petrel
Macronectes hallii
Very low concern
IUCN status of Least Concern
IUCN 2012
Whiteleg skate
Raja taaf
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
42
Heard and McDonald Islands Longline
Species
Stock status
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
References
Kerguelen sandpaper skate
Bathyraja irrasa
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Grey-headed albatross
Thalassarche chrysostoma High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Black-browed albatross
Thalassarche melanophris
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Murray's skate
Rhinoraja murrayi
High concern
IUCN 2012
Pacific sleeper shark
Somniosus pacificus
High concern
IUCN status
Level 3 risk assessment;
Volume of captures (0-3
t/year 2001-2011)
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
High concern
Elephant seal
Mirounga leonina
Very low concern
Whitson's grenadier
Macrourus whitsoni
Very low concern
IUCN status of species that
may comprise this group.
IUCN status of Least
concern; Two captures
reported since 2008
Level 3 risk
assessment;Volume of
captures (0-64 t/year 20012011)
Very low concern
Stock close to virgin
biomass, quantitative
stock assessment is
lacking but Level 3 risk
assessment completed;
Volume of captures (0-0.5 Zhou, S. et al. 2009;
t/year 2001-2011)
CCAMLR 2012
Southern lantern shark
Etmopterus granulosus
Zhou, S. et al. 2009;
CCAMLR 2012
IUCN 2012
SC-CAMLR 2009;
IUCN 2012
CCAMLR 2012
43
Falkland Islands
Species
Stock status
References
High concern
IUCN status of Data deficient
IUCN 2012
White-mouth skate
Bathyraja papilonifera
High concern
Moderate
concern
Amblyraja georgiana
High concern
IUCN status of Data deficient
IUCN 2012
Porbeagle
Lamna nasus
High concern
IUCN status of Vulnerable
IUCN 2012
Joined-fins skate
Bathyraja cousseauae
High concern
IUCN status of Near
threatened
IUCN 2012
Multispined skate
Bathyraja (Rhinoraja)
multispinis
High concern
IUCN status of Near
threatened
IUCN 2012
Whitedotted skate
Rhinoraja albomaculata High concern
IUCN status of Vulnerable
IUCN 2012
Darkbelly skate
Bathyraja meridionalis
High concern
Big-eye grenadier
Macrourus holotrachys
High concern
Macrourus carinatus
Low concern
Minke whale
Balaenoptera
bonaerensis
Low concern
IUCN status of Data deficient;
Volume of captures (4.1 - 10.3
t/year 2009 - 2011)
No evidence to suggest stock
is above or below reference
points; Unknown and Stock
Factor 1.1), 58 - 78 t
caught/year, 2009 - 2011
Stock is classified as not
overfished but quantitative
stock assessment is lacking;
wide distribution across the
Southern Oceans; Volume of
captures: 16 - 22 t/year 2009 2011
Single capture recorded since
2009
Laptikhovsky, V. Personal
communication; IUCN 2012
communication
communication; Froese, R. and
Pauly, D. 2012
IUCN 2012; Laptikhovsky, V.
Personal communication
44
Chile
Species
Stock status
References
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
High concern
Corals and biogenic habitat
Yellownose skate
Zearaja chilensis
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Piked dogfish
Squalus acanthias
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Thickbody skate
Amblyraja frerichsi
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Big-eye grenadier
High concern
Chilean grenadier
Coelorhynchus chilensis
Moderate concern
Macrourus carinatus
High concern
Banded whiptail
Coelorhynchus fasciatus Moderate concern
No information showing
stock status with respect
to reference points;
Stock resilience is low (as
scored in Factor 1.1).
Stock resilience is
moderate (as scored in
Factor
1.1).
No
information
showing
Stock resilience is low (as
Stock resilience is
moderate (as scored in
Factor 1.1).
F. Goyeneche,
unpubl.
Galvez, P. et al.
2011
Galvez, P. et al.
2011; F. Goyeneche,
unpubl.
Galvez, P. et al.
2011
45
Species
Stock status
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
High concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
Grenadiers
Macrourus spp.
Low concern
Skates and rays
Rajids
Moderate concern
References
Stock is classified as not
overfished but quantitative
stock assessment is lacking;
Widespread species; Low
volumes of catch (4 - 46
t/year caught since 2005)
Species composition of
catch unknown, although
minimal catch occurs (2 t
since 2005).
SC-CAMLR
2011; Froese, R.
and Pauly, D.
2012
SC-CAMLR
2011; Froese, R.
and Pauly, D.
2012
Antarctic toothfish, Ross Sea
Species
Stock status
High concern
High concern
References
MacCain's skate
Bathyraja maccaini
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Eaton's skate
Bathyraja eatonii
High concern
IUCN status
IUCN 2012
Raja georgiana
High concern
IUCN 2012
Whitson's grenadier
Macrourus whitsoni
Low concern
Grenadiers
Macrourus spp.
High concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
High concern
IUCN status
Yield estimate used to
determine bycatch limits
information showing stock
status with respect to
reference points; Stock
Factor 1.1).
information showing stock
status with respect to
reference points; Stock
Factor 1.1) and some species
are IUCN-classified.
Hanchet et al. 2008b
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012; IUCN
2012
Table 6. Fish bycatch (i.e., non-target, non-retained species) in toothfish fisheries, for which bycatch comprises
more than 1% of the total catch by weight (live, unprocessed). The bycatch as a maximum proportion of total catch
is shown in parentheses from data collected 2008–2010. (See sources listed below).
_____________________________________________________________________
46
Fishery
Species (% total catch)
Source
_____________________________________________________________________
South Georgia
Grenadiers (3.9%)
CCAMLR 2012
Kerguelen Island
Ridge scaled rattail (14%)
CCAMLR 2012
Whiteleg skate (2.1%)
CCAMLR 2012
Rajids (7%)
CCAMLR 2012
Crozet Islands
Violet cod (8%)
CCAMLR 2012
Ridge scaled rattail (16%)
CCAMLR 2012
Whiteleg skate (5.6%)
CCAMLR 2012
Rajids (6%)
CCAMLR 2012
Prince Edward and
Grenadiers (6%)
CCAMLR 2012
Marion Islands
Macquarie Island
Southern sleeper shark (1-3%)
Morison et al. 2012;
AFMA 2009, 2011
Falkland Islands
Ridge scaled rattail (1.6%)
V. Laptikhovsky, pers. comm.
Bigeye grenadier (5.6%)
Chile
Coelorhynchus fasciatus(1.3%)
Galvez et al. 2011.
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
Grenadiers (6.6%)
CCAMLR 2012
Whitson’s grenadier (2.3%)
_____________________________________________________________________
Benthic invertebrates and habitat-forming organisms were scored in accordance with the
‘unknown bycatch matrix’ from the SFW criteria. While understanding of these organisms (and
data collection on bycatch patterns) is increasing (e.g., Hibberd and Moore 20091), there are
significant knowledge gaps relating to their distribution, abundance, and population statuses.
Data collection is often not at the species level, and identification of some species is
challenging.
Factor 2.3 Fishing mortality
Bycatch includes seabirds, cetaceans, pinnipeds, and a diversity of fish species, especially
skates, rays, and grenadiers. For some species, catches were higher in the early years of most
toothfish fisheries but are now very low (e.g., <10 individuals annually for seabirds and marine
mammals in most CAMLR Convention Area fisheries) due to the introduction of effective
bycatch reduction measures. However, the IUCN threat classifications of some bycatch species
make ongoing capture a particular concern. More generally, the extent of skate/ray and
1
http://www.ccamlr.org/en/document/publications/vme-taxa-classification-guide
47
grenadier captures is cause for ongoing work to ensure sustainability limits are not being
exceeded. Data reported at the generic, rather than the specific, level generates cautious
assessments due to the unknown species composition of catches. As for the target stocks,
precise impacts of past IUU activities on bycatch species are unknown.
This assessment focuses on data reported from 2008/09 onwards (e.g., Table 6) but considers
data back to 2001 (CCAMLR 2012; Lack et al. 2012; Morison et al. 2012; J. Barton personal
communication).
For seabirds and marine mammals, reported catch numbers were very low to nil, except for
white-chinned petrels and grey petrels in the Kerguelen and Crozet fisheries (see below).
Where very low numbers were caught, fishery mortality was evaluated as a very low concern as
the fishery was not a substantial contributor to mortality or there was published evidence
available that mortality was at a sustainable level.
As above for stock status, benthic invertebrates and habitat-forming organisms were scored in
accordance with the ‘unknown bycatch matrix’. Data collection on these organisms is underway
in some fisheries, but species-level taxonomic resolution is often difficult.
Additional pertinent fishery-specific information is summarized below by fishery, with species
assessed individually in the tables above. For some fisheries (e.g., Chile), evaluation of bycatch
at the species level is difficult while data collection improves (see Criterion 3.1 below). The
post-release survival of bycatch species is highly variable and is affected by depth, buoyancy
control mechanisms, and fishing method. For example, some skates survive capture and release
(e.g., Benoît et al. 2010; Endicott 2010). Mitigation measures in place to reduce seabird
captures include area/seasonal closures, discard retention, line-weighting, streamer lines, and
the use of cachalotera (Moreno et al. 2008) for longlines.
48
South Georgia
Species
Mortality assessment
Low concern
Low concern
Volume of captures (<2 t since
2001); IUCN classification:
Vulnerable, widespread declines
reported
Volume of captures (59-162 t/year
since 2002)
References
CCAMLR 2012;
IUCN 2012
Porbeagle
Lamna nasus
Very low concern
Grenadier
Macrourus spp.
Moderate concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
Moderate concern,
IUCN status
Raja georgiana
Very low concern
since 2001)
since 2001)
Orca
Orcinus orca
Very low concern
Single capture reported since 2008 SC-CAMLR 2009
Elephant seal
Mirounga leonina
Very low concern
Single capture reported since 2008 SC-CAMLR 2009
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
Macquarie Island
Species
Basis for
Mortality assessment assessment
Low concern
SFW Unknown
bycatch matrix
Low concern
SFW Unknown
bycatch matrix
Low concern
Level 3 risk
assessment*
Southern sleeper shark
Somniosus antarcticus
References
Zhou, S.,
Fuller, M. 2011
A Level 3 risk assessment has been completed for this fishery (Zhou and Fuller 2011).
*Whitson’s grenadier (Macrourus whitsoni) (also caught in the Ross Sea) was caught at
Macquarie Island in volumes greater than 5% of total catch in one year (2006/07, when this
species was 5.2% of total catch). Such volumes of capture have not been repeated in
subsequent years (Morison et al. 2012).
*Southern sleeper shark is classified as data deficient (IUCN 2012). This is a particularly
vulnerable species caught at Macquarie Island. Individuals of this species can be very large and
comprise 1–3% of the total catch in the Macquarie Island toothfish fishery. Experts consider it
probable that fishery mortalities are sustainable given capture levels and the availability of
unfished habitat; this is subject to ongoing assessment (AFMA 2009, 2011).
49
Kerguelen Islands
Species
Low concern
Low concern
Moderate concern
Grey petrel
Procellaria cinerea
Moderate concern
Rays
Raja spp.
Moderate concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes
Moderate concern
Macrourus carinatus
Moderate concern
Whiteleg skate
Raja taaf
Moderate concern
Rockhopper penguin
Eudyptes chrysocome
Very low concern
Giant petrel
Macronectes hallii
Very low concern
Reported captures and bycatch
contributing to population
declines; improved
management and reduced
bycatch in recent years may
improve status in future
contributing to population
declines; improved
management and reduced
bycatch in recent years may
improve status in future
t/year since 2007)
t/year 2001-2007); low inherent
resilience; genus includes
threatened and data deficient
species ; efficacy of
management is unknown.
t/year since 2007); Species
comprises >5% of bycatch by
weight; Resilience low
t/year 2007-2008); Resilience
low
Single capture reported since
2008; Species has a decreasing
population trend and is
classified by the IUCN as
Vulnerable. The cause of
population decline is not clear,
although contributing factors
may be climate change, human
consumption, pollution and
habitat disturbance.
<10 captures reported since
2008; IUCN classification of
Least concern
References
Delord, K. et al.
2005; Barbraud,
C. et al. 2008;
Barbraud, C. et al.
2011
Delord, K. et al.
2005; Barbraud,
C. et al. 2008;
Barbraud, C. et al.
2011
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
SC-CAMLR 2008;
IUCN 2012
SC-CAMLR 2008;
IUCN 2012
50
Crozet Islands
Species
Low concern
Low concern
Grey petrel
Procellaria cinerea
Moderate concern
contributing to population declines;
improved management and reduced
bycatch in recent years may improve
status in future
Moderate concern
contributing to population declines;
improved management and reduced
bycatch in recent years may improve
status in future
Macrourus carinatus
Moderate concern
Violet cod
Antimora rostrata
Low concern
Giant petrel
Macronectes hallii
Very low concern
Whiteleg skate
Raja taaf
Moderate concern
References
Delord, K. et al. 2005;
Barbraud, C. et al.
2008; Barbraud, C. et
al. 2011
Delord, K. et al. 2005;
Barbraud, C. et al.
2008; Barbraud, C. et
al. 2011
since 2007); Species comprises >5% of
bycatch by weight; Resilience low
CCAMLR 2012
Volume of captures (0.5-86 t/year 20012011)
CCAMLR 2012
<10 captures reported since 2008; IUCN SC-CAMLR 2008; IUCN
classification of Least concern
2012
Volume of captures (31-56 t/year 20072011)
CCAMLR 2012
51
Heard and McDonald Islands Longline
Species
Mortality assessment Basis for assessment
SFW Unknown bycatch
Low concern
matrix
SFW Unknown bycatch
Low concern
matrix
Level 3 risk assessment species assessed as in the
high risk category, but no
current indications of
Kerguelen sandpaper skate Bathyraja irrasa
Low concern
depletions
Single capture in 2009;
Sustainable based on
Grey-headed albatross
Thalassarche chrysostoma Very low concern
global population size
Single capture in 2009;
Sustainable based on
Black-browed albatross
Thalassarche melanophris Very low concern
global population size
Murray's skate
Rhinoraja murrayi
Low concern
Pacific sleeper shark
Somniosus pacificus
Low concern
Whitson's grenadier
Macrourus whitsoni
Very low concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
Low concern
Elephant seal
Mirounga leonina
Very low concern
Southern lantern shark
Etmopterus granulosus
Very low concern
Level 3 risk assessment species assessed as in the
high risk category, but no
depletions
t/year 2001-2011)
Level 3 risk
assessment;Volume of
captures (0-64 t/year 20012011)
Level 3 risk assessment species assessed some
rajids as in the high risk
category, but there are no
depletions
Two captures reported
since 2008; IUCN status of
Leas concern
Volume of captures (0-0.5
t/year 2001-2011)
References
AFMA 2012b;
CCAMLR 2012
SC-CAMLR 2009;
IUCN 2012
Lack, M. et al. 2009;
SC-CAMLR 2009
AFMA 2012b;
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
AFMA 2012b;
CCAMLR 2012
SC-CAMLR 2009;
IUCN 2012
CCAMLR 2012
52
Falkland Islands
Species
Mortality
assessment
Low concern
Low concern
IUCN status of data deficient;
t/year 2009 - 2011)
Volume of captures (10.6 26.6 t/year 2009 - 2011)
IUCN status; Volume of
captures (0.6 - 2.1 t/year 2009 2011)
IUCN status of Near
threatened; Volume of
captures (1.1 - 2.7 t/year 2009 2011)
IUCN status of Near
threatened; Volume of
captures (0.1 - 0.3 t/year 2009 2011)
IUCN status of Vulnerable;
Volume of captures (0.02 0.06 t/year 2009 - 2011)
t/year 2009 - 2011)
Volume of captures (58 - 78
t/year 2009 - 2011)
t/year 2009 - 2011)
Single capture recorded since
2009; IUCN status of Data
deficient
White-mouth skate
Bathyraja papilonifera
Low concern
Amblyraja georgiana
Low concern
Porbeagle
Lamna nasus
Low concern
Joined-fins skate
Bathyraja cousseauae
Low concern
Multispined skate
Bathyraja (Rhinoraja)
multispinis
Low concern
Whitedotted skate
Rhinoraja albomaculata Low concern
Darkbelly skate
Bathyraja meridionalis
Low concern
Big-eye grenadier
Low concern
Macrourus carinatus
Low concern
Minke whale
Balaenoptera
bonaerensis
Very low
concern
References
communication
communication
communication
53
Chile
Species
Low concern
Low concern
Yellownose skate
Zearaja chilensis
Moderate concern
Piked dogfish
Squalus acanthias
Moderate concern
Thickbody skate
Amblyraja frerichsi
Moderate concern
Big-eye grenadier
Moderate concern
Chilean grenadier
Coelorhynchus chilensis
Low concern
Macrourus carinatus
Low concern
Banded whiptail
Coelorhynchus fasciatus Low concern
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
SFW Unknown bycatch
matrix
IUCN status; Population
of special concern and
management
effectiveness is
unknown
management
effectiveness is
unknown
management
effectiveness is
unknown
References
58% of the catch by
number of individuals
Volume of captures (23 t,
2010; <1% of catch)
2010; <1% of catch by
weight, 13% by number)
2010; 1.3% of catch)
F. Goyeneche,
unpubl.
Galvez, P. et al
2011; IUCN 2012
Galvez, P. et al
2011; IUCN 2012
Galvez, P. et al
2011; IUCN 2012
Galvez, P. et al.
2011
Galvez, P. et al.
2011; F. Goyeneche,
unpubl.
Galvez, P. et al.
2011
Species
Mortality assessment Basis for assessment
SFW Unknown bycatch
Low concern
matrix
SFW Unknown bycatch
Low concern
matrix
Grenadiers
Skates and rays
Macrourus spp.
Rajids
References
Low concern
Volume of catch (4 - 46
t/year caught since 2005)
Very low concern
Volume of catch (2 t caught
since 2005)
SC-CAMLR 2011
SC-CAMLR 2011
54
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
Species
Low concern
Low concern
MacCain's skate
Bathyraja maccaini
Very low concern
Eaton's skate
Bathyraja eatonii
Very low concern
Raja georgiana
Low concern
Whitson's grenadier
Macrourus whitsoni
Low concern
Grenadiers
Macrourus spp.
Moderate concern
Skates and rays
Rajiformes spp.
Moderate concern
Volume of captures (0 - 0.5
t/year 2001-2011)
t/year 2001-2011)
t/year, 2001 - 2011)
Yield estimate used to
determine bycatch limits*
t/year, 2001-2011); species not
identified
t/year, 2001-2011); species not
identified
References
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
Hancet et al. 2008b
CCAMLR 2012
CCAMLR 2012
*A yield estimate has been calculated for Whitson’s grenadier. This estimate is based on a
fishery-independent survey of the Ross Sea slope. The yield estimate is used to set bycatch
limits (Hanchet et al. 2008b).
Factor 2.4. Overall discard rate
Data reported from toothfish fisheries shows that non-target catches are generally low (Gálvez
et al. 2011; SC-CAMLR 2011; AFMA 2012b; CCAMLR 2012; V. Laptikhovksy, personal
communication). For all fisheries assessed here except Crozet, the discard ratio was below 20%
by weight (Table 7).
Table 7. Percentage of discards in relation to total catch (tonnes) for toothfish fisheries in this
assessment.
_____________________________________________________________________
Fishery (total catch, tons)
Discards (% of total)
Source
_____________________________________________________________________
South Georgia (1863)
5.4%
CCAMLR 2012
Kerguelen Islands
(6586)
<1 - 21%*
CCAMLR 2012
Crozet Islands (883)
<1 – 26%*
CCAMLR 2012
Heard and McDonald Islands
<1.1 – 5.8%*
CCAMLR 2012
-
Longline
Prince Edward and
(1557)
9.1%
(132)
6.1%
CCAMLR 2012
55
Marion Islands
Macquarie Island
Falkland Islands
Chile
(~385)
(1399)
(3088)
6.5%
14.6%
2.7 – 3.3%*
Morison et al. 2012
V. Laptikhovsky, pers. comm.
Galvez et al. 2011.
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea
(2573)
8.1%
CCAMLR 2012
_____________________________________________________________________
*Proportion of particular species retained vs. discarded can vary.
56
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness
Guiding principle

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.
Management should be appropriate for the inherent resilience of affected marine life
and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing
mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and
enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long-term productivity
or ecological role of any species in the future.
Fishery
South Georgia –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Kerguelen –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Crozet –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Heard and
McDonald Island –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Macquarie Island
– Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Falkland Islands –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Ross Sea –
Antarctic
Toothfish –
Longline
Management: Harvest strategy
Management: Bycatch
Criterion 3
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
Very low concern
(5)
Moderate concern
(3)
Green
(3.87)
Moderate concern
(3)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(3)
Very high concern
(1)
Moderate concern
(3)
Red
(1.73)
Very low concern
(5)
Very low concern
(5)
Green
(5)
Very low concern
(5)
Very low concern
(5)
Green
(5)
Low concern
(4)
Moderate concern
(3)
Green
(3.46)
Moderate concern
(3)
Low concern
(4)
Green
(3.46)
57
Prince Edward and
Marion Islands –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Chile domestic –
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Very high concern
(1)
Moderate concern
(3)
Red
(1.73)
Very high concern
(1)
Very high concern
(1)
Red
(1)
Justification of ranking
Factor 3.1. Management of fishing impacts on retained species
Catch data for all species are recorded by onboard observers and, for CCAMLR fisheries, are
also recorded and reported as STATLANT data (e.g., including fishing effort, location, species
caught, etc.) provided to the CCAMLR secretariat and published (CCAMLR 2012). In CCAMLR
fisheries, observers are deployed in accordance with the CCAMLR Scheme of International
Scientific Observation (CCAMLR 2011b). All vessels fishing for toothfish in the Convention Area
are required to carry one international (i.e., not from the vessel’s flag state) observer. Some
also carry national observers. Outside the Convention Area, some toothfish vessels still carry
two observers (e.g., at Heard, McDonald and Macquarie islands).
Toothfish is the only species targeted in the fisheries assessed here, although other species (see
below) are retained in certain of these fisheries. Scientific information available on Patagonian
toothfish, and species associated with its fisheries, is acquired as a result of fishing activity as
well as fishery-independent data collection for some fisheries (e.g., trawl surveys, Duhamel and
Welsford 2011). Stock assessment approaches are updated as information emerges about
stock structure (e.g., the identification and evaluation of straddling stocks). Current work on
stock assessment includes combined assessment of toothfish around Kerguelen, Heard and
McDonald Islands (Lack et al. 2012; D. Welsford, personal communication). The management of
the Chilean domestic toothfish fishery would be improved by the development and
implementation of a rebuilding strategy for the target stock.
For the fisheries at Kerguelen and Crozet islands, several macrourids and rajids are sometimes
retained in addition to toothfish. These species (ridge scaled rattail, Eaton’s skate, Kerguelen
sandpaper skate, whiteleg skate) are processed upon landing. No stock information is available
for these species (SC-CAMLR 2011). Ridge-scaled rattail and whiteleg skate can be caught in
volumes greater than 5% of total catch. Information allowing the assessment of stock status for
this species is desirable to ensure effective management and that sustainability limits are not
exceeded. Similarly, unicorn icefish and grey rockcod are caught and retained in the Heard,
McDonald and Macquarie Island fisheries, but at levels less than 5% of total catch (Lack et al.
58
2012; Morison et al. 2012). At Heard and McDonald, these species are harvested in accordance
with stock assessments. For icefish, the stock assessment has recently been updated and
reviewed (Constable et al. 1998; SC-CAMLR 2011). For rockcod, the 1998 assessment is still in
use (Lack et al. 2012). In addition, comprehensive Level 3 risk assessments have been
undertaken for Heard, McDonald and Macquarie Island fisheries (Zhou et al. 2009; Zhou and
Fuller 2011).
With numerous enforcement measures in place, IUU activities have not been detected in most
fisheries considered here in recent years (except Chile, for which no information was available).
A comprehensive suite of enforcement measures is implemented in the fisheries assessed in
this report. Residual IUU fishing occurs outside the fisheries assessed here and is also
monitored (CCAMLR 2011). IUU products are not permitted entry to the USA.
Four toothfish fishery areas have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council
(www.msc.org): South Georgia (longline), Heard and McDonald Islands (trawl and longline),
Macquarie Island (trawl and longline), and the Ross Sea (longline) fisheries. The demersal
longline fisheries around Crozet and the Kerguelen Islands have been under assessment since
20092, and the Falkland Islands fishery entered the assessment process in August 20123.
Detailed rationale:
South Georgia – Very low concern
Management strategy and implementation (highly effective)
This fishery operates following the objectives and management goals of the CCAMLR approach.
These include a precautionary approach, utilization of a management approach that
incorporates ecosystem considerations, and the concept of ‘rational use’ (www.ccamlr.org, see
Article 2 of the Convention: Appendix B). Rational use is encompassed in three principles (see
Appendix B for exact wording): prevention of population decreases below a level ensuring
stable recruitment, maintenance of ecological relationships, and prevention or minimization of
ecosystem changes or the risk of such changes that are not potentially reversible over 2–3
decades. Management objectives are made operational through a variety of mechanisms
including harvest management rules, bycatch limits, conservation measures, etc. (see below).
The management approach and implementation are evaluated annually through consideration
of a substantial body of data relating to fishery activities and the broader environmental
context of the fishery.
2
3
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/southern-ocean/SARPC-toothfish
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/south-atlantic/falkland_island_toothfish
59
Scientific research and monitoring (highly effective)
This fishery operates under a scientifically accepted stock assessment that is updated annually
with new data, allowing delivery on management targets to be assessed (SC-CAMLR 2011).
There is a significant body of available data relating to this fishery and extensive ongoing data
collection and annual review (SC-CAMLR 2011). Data collection includes full catch reporting,
collection of specified biological information on target catch, VMS data, details on gear
deployed, etc. Requirements for data collection by observers are determined annually and
sometimes include particular projects (e.g., International Polar Year).
Scientific advice (highly effective)
Management measures are developed for this fishery as part of the CCAMLR cycle. This
includes extensive and iterative annual evaluation of scientific data (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Management appears to closely follow scientific advice as delivered through the CCAMLR
process. The domestic quota has, in recent years, been lower than indicated by the CCAMLR
management target as a precautionary measure given uncertainty in recruitment (M. Collins,
personal communication).
Enforcement (highly effective)
The approach to enforcement is robust and multifaceted, including observers on every vessel,
deployment of vessel monitoring systems (VMS), vessel inspections, catch verification (whereby
each vessel must return directly to port on completion of fishing and have its catch weighed),
uniquely marked hooks on each vessel (to allow identification and tracking of gear),
surveillance, a catch documentation scheme for toothfish, and regular reviews of
implementation and compliance (CCAMLR 2011a, b; M. Collins, personal communication). The
catch documentation scheme is recognized as a global best practice and is effective in greatly
reducing the shipment of toothfish of uncertain legality and provenance (Clarke and MRAG
2010). Mislabeled product identified as originating from South Georgia has been highlighted in
published work citing genetic analysis as a tool for detection of potential traceability issues
(Marko et al. 2011). However, subsequent investigation has not confirmed this finding4.
Traceability in this fishery is monitored through Marine Stewardship Council annual audits of
the fishery and as part of MSC’s ongoing sampling of certified product (www.msc.org). While no
IUU activity has been detected in this fishery in recent years, ongoing vigilance is required given
the large areas of ocean over which fishing occurs and the market incentive created by a highly
priced fish.
Track record (highly effective)
This fishery has harvested stocks to a level consistent with management targets during the time
it has operated (since the mid-1980s, SC-CAMLR 2011). The management target for toothfish
has been approached recently in this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011). A significant body of ongoing
research and monitoring work is in place to inform ongoing effective management of the
fishery. Consequently, the track record of this fishery is considered ‘highly effective’.
4
http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/update-lack-of-evidence-blocks-msc-investigation-into-toothfishmislabelling-claims
60
Stakeholder inclusion (highly effective)
This fishery has opportunities for stakeholder engagement both domestically and through the
CCAMLR process. Participants in CCAMLR working groups include government and private
research organizations, industry, and eNGOs. Reviews of fisheries management policy include
consultation with known stakeholders and public comment (Medley et al. 2009). The Director
of Fisheries meets annually with fishery participants, and these meetings are open to
stakeholders interested in fishery management. Meeting scope includes fishery management
and performance, CCAMLR-related matters (e.g., new information), changes proposed for
upcoming fishery activity, and matters raised by meeting participants. In addition, the Director
of Fisheries is available to respond to communication outside of these meetings.
Heard and McDonald Islands – Very low concern
These include a precautionary approach, utilization of management approaches developed with
explicit consideration of the ecosystem effects of harvesting, and the concept of ‘rational use’
(see Article 2 of the Convention, www.ccamlr.org, Appendix B). As part of Australia’s Exclusive
Economic Zone, management objectives are made operational through a variety of
mechanisms, including harvest management rules, catch limits for non-target species and
bycatch, conservation measures, etc. Currently, work is underway to improve quantitative
approaches to management of the stock shared by the Heard and McDonald Islands and
Kerguelen Islands fisheries. France (within whose Exclusive Economic Zone the Kerguelen
fishery falls) is also party to CCAMLR.
The toothfish fishery operates using a stock assessment that has been agreed upon as a basis
for management (SC-CAMLR 2011). There is a significant body of data available every year to
update the model. Given the proximity of the modeled stock to the level targeted by
management, increased confidence surrounding the key uncertainties in this model has been
recommended (SC-CAMLR 2011). Quantitative approaches to stock management are being
investigated by Australian and French scientists given that the Heard and McDonald Islands and
Kerguelen Islands fisheries are both targeting the same toothfish stock. Along with the model
development described above, this combined approach will increase the rigor of management
measures. Stock assessments are available for the retained species in this fishery (unicorn
icefish and grey rockcod) (Constable et al. 1998; SC-CAMLR 2011), but the rockcod model has
not been updated since 1998. Catch of both species occurs at less than 5% of total catch (Table
6) and catch limits are in place (CCAMLR Conservation Measure 33-02). A Level 3 risk
assessment has also been completed (Zhou et al. 2009).
Management measures are developed for this fishery as part of the CCAMLR cycle and through
Australian domestic processes (Lack et al. 2012). This includes extensive and iterative
61
evaluations of scientific data. Management is based on scientific advice, which is evaluated
annually (e.g., SC-CAMLR 2011).
The approach to enforcement is robust and multifaceted, including observers on every vessel,
deployment of VMS, satellite surveillance, vessel inspections, vessel-based patrols, a catch
documentation scheme for toothfish, and regular reviews of implementation and compliance
(as described above; CCAMLR 2011). No IUU activity has been detected in this fishery in recent
years, however ongoing vigilance is both planned (www.afma.gov.au) and required given the
large areas of ocean over which fishing occurs and the market incentive created by highly
priced fish. Joint patrols are also undertaken with French authorities due to the adjacency of
French fisheries.
This fishery has harvested stocks to a level consistent with its management target during the
time it has operated (SC-CAMLR 2011). The management target for toothfish has been
approached recently in this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011) and a comprehensive set of monitoring
and research measures are in place to inform ongoing fishery management. The track record
for this fishery is considered ‘highly effective’.
This fishery has opportunities for stakeholder engagement through a number of domestically
active groups as well as the CCAMLR process (Lack et al. 2012). Groups include the Australian
Antarctic Division, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Sub-Antarctic Resource
Assessment Group, Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators, and the Heard and McDonald Island
stakeholder group (which includes government, industry, and environmental non-governmental
organizations).
Macquarie Island – Very low concern
While located in the Australian Economic Zone and outside the CAMLR Convention Area, this
fishery operates following the objectives and management goals of the CCAMLR approach. As
described above, these include a precautionary and ecosystem-focused approach, and the
concept of ‘rational use’ (Appendix B). Management objectives are made operational through a
variety of mechanisms, including harvest management rules, bycatch catch limits, conservation
measures, etc. An Annual Status Report describes legislation and policies utilized in
management of the fishery (for target catch as well as non-target and bycatch, habitat impacts,
etc.; AFMA 2012). In short, toothfish catch limits are divided amongst regions of the fishery in
accordance with the stock assessment model, which is developed using the criteria in Appendix
B. Bycatch limits have been implemented and spatial closures are in place (AFMA 2012).
62
This toothfish fishery operates under a publicly available and peer-reviewed stock assessment
(Fay 2011; Fay et al. 2011). There is a significant body of data available relating to this fishery
and extensive ongoing data collection and review (AFMA 2011, 2012b). There is no stock
assessment available for grey rockcod; however, catch occurs at less than 5% of total. Catch
limits are in place, and a Level 3 risk assessment has been conducted. This factor is considered
to be ‘highly effective’.
Management measures are developed through Australian domestic processes and in alignment
with CCAMLR measures (AFMA 2012b; Morison et al. 2012). Management is based on scientific
advice and described in an Annual Status Report addressing measures relating to target catch,
non-target and bycatch, habitat impacts, etc. (AFMA 2012).
Enforcement measures include observer coverage on every vessel, the use of integrated
computerized VMS, completion of daily logbooks, vessel and aerial surveillance, compliance
with the catch documentation scheme, and monitored unloads in port. In Australian ports,
unloads are monitored by government officials from the Australian Fishery Management
Authority. In ports outside Australia, AFMA also monitors unloads including checking vessels’
compliance with Port State measures (CCAMLR Conservation Measure 10-03) and confirming
the legality of the landed product (Morison et al. 2012). A year-round scientific operation is
located on the island and visits by tourist vessels provide additional legal presence. Thus, the
approach to enforcement is robust and multifaceted and meets the requirements for
assessment as ‘highly effective’.
This fishery has harvested toothfish stocks to a level consistent with its management target
during the time it has operated (almost 20 years; Fay 2011; Fay et al. 2011). A comprehensive
set of monitoring and research measures is in place to inform ongoing fishery management.
Consequently, the track record for this fishery is considered ‘highly effective’.
This fishery has a number of opportunities for stakeholder engagement. Documents are
distributed on the Internet by AFMA, and processes for public comment operate on an ongoing
basis (Lack et al. 2012).
Prince Edward and Marion Islands – High concern
Management strategy and implementation (moderately effective)
This fishery operates in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of South Africa as well as
inside the CAMLR Convention Area. Its management is challenging due to factors including
recent fishing gear changes and a history of IUU fishing from which the remaining stock must
63
recover. An Operational Management Procedure has been published (Brandao and Butterworth
2009) and is currently under revision. This is expected to guide the future management of the
target stock (SC-CAMLR 2011). The current catch limit for toothfish in this fishery is considered
conservative by managers (R. Leslie, personal communication).
Recovery of stocks of concern (ineffective)
The stock biomass remaining in this fishery following extensive IUU fishing in the 1990s was
assessed at a few percent of the pre-exploitation levels (Brandão et al. 2002). The management
response to the lack of clarity around current stock status and rebuild trajectory has been to
harvest at a lower level than a more optimistic stock evaluation would support, if reliable (R.
Leslie, personal communication). Given the uncertainty in outcomes for its management
approach, this fishery is assessed as ‘ineffective’ here.
Scientific research and monitoring (moderately effective)
A robust stock assessment is not available for this fishery as outlined above and in Section 1.2.
However, a management procedure has been developed (from Brandão and Butterworth 2009)
that guides harvest at low levels and is considered to be conservative by the responsible
government agency (R. Leslie, personal communication). Data collection is ongoing in this
fishery for a number of reasons including ongoing monitoring (e.g., a change to a different
configuration of demersal longline) and to allow development of better-informed harvesting
strategies. Given the uncertainty in the present situation, including the trajectory of the target
stock under current management measures, this fishery is considered ‘moderately effective’.
Scientific advice (moderately effective)
Consideration of scientific advice is integral to this fishery. However, an assessment of
‘moderately effective’ is made due to the explicit consideration of economics in management
decision-making (although this may be otherwise appropriate for reasons not related to stock
condition; Brandão and Butterworth 2009).
In this fishery, the approach to enforcement is multifaceted, including observers, deployment
of VMS, vessel inspections, surveillance, a catch documentation scheme for toothfish, and
regular reviews of compliance (CCAMLR 2011a, b). While target stocks in this area are thought
to be at low levels compared to before fishing activity, the presence of a legal fishery in this
area is expected to contribute to the elimination of illegal fishing activities.
Track record (moderately effective)
More time is needed to evaluate the success of management for toothfish at the Prince Edward
and Marion Islands. Management challenges include the recovery of the stock from previously
high levels of IUU fishing. While enforcement has ameliorated this condition, gear changes and
uncertain stock status require ongoing consideration and potentially novel management
approaches.
64
Stakeholder inclusion (moderately effective)
This fishery has opportunities for stakeholder engagement through the CCAMLR process (SCCAMLR 2011). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries makes some documents
available for consultation via its websites (www.nda.agric.za and www.daff.govt.za). However,
the application of this approach to consultation for toothfish fishery management and policy
development is unclear.
Crozet Islands – High concern
The fishery around Crozet Islands is largely located inside the CAMLR Convention Area and the
French Exclusive Economic Zone (Delegation of France 2009). Most CCAMLR management
measures are applied (Delegation of France 2009). A stock assessment model has not been
developed, and target species catch is currently managed using a catch limit derived from an
approach-integrating catch per unit effort (SC-CAMLR 2011; TAAF 2011; Reuillard, E. personal
communication). This model includes cetacean predation on hooked toothfish. Work on this
model will be reported following the 2012/13 fishing season (Reuillard, E. personal
communication). The efficacy of measures to reduce catch of non-target retained species is
unclear although the provision exists for implementation of several measures (e.g., avoiding
areas considered to host ‘high densities’ of non-target species, and ceasing fishing where
bycatch is found to be at ‘high densities’; the definition of ‘high densities’ was not available at
the time of writing) (Delegation of France 2011; TAAF 2012).
Management includes measures to limit catch of juvenile toothfish in this fishery, and captains
must set test lines before ‘normal’ fishing begins to check levels of juvenile capture (TAAF
2012). Tagging efforts continue and catch data are regularly reported (SC-CAMLR 2011). Since
2006, 4% of tagged fish have been recaptured. Depths less than 500 m and areas closer than 12
nmi from the coast are closed to fishing in order to facilitate spawning (SC-CAMLR 2011). While
the catch limit in place in this fishery is considered precautionary (E. Reuillard, personal
communication), the certainty of stock recovery would increase with additional information
(e.g., reporting of assessments used to set catch limits).
The toothfish fishery is currently managed using a catch limit, which is implemented annually
(SC-CAMLR 2011), although it is not currently incorporated into an accepted stock assessment
(SC-CAMLR 2011). Continuing work to resolve the relationship between Crozet, Heard and
McDonald-area toothfish will provide for improved management approaches. While not target
species, macrourids and rajids are also processed when landed in this fishery, specifically Ridge
scaled rattail and whiteleg skate. Landings are recorded and reported, but no stock assessments
or evaluations of the sustainability of harvest are available for these species (SC-CAMLR 2011).
65
Consideration of scientific advice appears to have improved significantly in recent years (e.g.,
SC-CAMLR 2011). However, an assessment of ‘moderately effective’ is made, given that not all
science-based advice has been implemented by management, and the development and
implementation of science-based management measures have occurred slowly in many cases
(e.g., for reducing the catch of retained non-target species). The continuation of the recent
focus on developing and implementing science-based management approaches for all retained
species is expected to lead to an improvement in this evaluation over time.
The approach to enforcement is multifaceted in this fishery, including observers or scientific
experts onboard vessels, deployment of VMS, vessel inspections, vessel-based patrols,
surveillance (including using satellites), detailed permitting arrangements, clearly identified
roles and responsibilities for operators, and a catch documentation scheme for toothfish
(CCAMLR 2011).
Active management and measures that limit target catch are in place. However, uncertain stock
status for target and retained species requires ongoing consideration and analysis.
Consequently, long-term abundance has not been demonstrated in the retained stocks, as
required by this criterion.
This fishery provides opportunities for stakeholder engagement through the CCAMLR process
(SC-CAMLR 2011). In addition, three bodies come together during the year to discuss matters
relating to the fishery. The Réunion de Concertation Pêche meets once per year for fishery
management updates (e.g., conservation measures, quota) and includes scientists, staff from
the Terres Australes et Antarctique Françaises (TAAF) administration, the ministries of foreign
affairs, fisheries, and overseas, and fishing industry managers. The Comité de pilotage des
bonnes pratiques de la pêche (C3P) meets once per year and involves TAAF administration,
scientists, fishing industry, managers, captains and essential crew members. The C3P discusses
best practices including incidental mortality, bycatch, cetacean depredation of toothfish, etc.
the Groupe de travail pêche (GTP) meets three times a year and involves scientists, TAAF
administration, ministries of foreign affairs, fisheries and overseas, as well as fishing industry
managers. The GTP discusses organization, including funding of scientific research on fisheries
management (e.g., fish stock assessment, E. Reuillard, personal communication). Increased
transparency could be achieved by documenting and reporting decision-making influences and
processes as well as by providing opportunities for public/NGO stakeholder participation.
However, members of the public and eNGOs are not known to have requested participation (E.
Reuillard, personal communication).
66
Kerguelen Islands – Moderate concern
The Kerguelen Islands are located inside the CAMLR Convention Area and also inside the French
Exclusive Economic Zone. Most CCAMLR management measures are applied (Delegation of
France 2009). In the past, the target species catch was managed using a catch limit that was not
derived from a peer-reviewed stock assessment (SC-CAMLR 2011; TAAF 2011; Appendix B). A
preliminary stock assessment has been used to derive management advice for the fishery in
2012/13; further work on this assessment is required to set catch limits beyond that timeframe
(SC-CAMLR 2012). The efficacy of measures to reduce catch of non-target retained species is
unclear, although several measures have been prescribed (e.g., avoiding areas with ‘high
densities’ of non-target species and ceasing fishing where bycatch is found to be at ‘high
densities’; the definition of ‘high densities’ was unavailable at the time of writing) (Delegation
of France 2011; TAAF 2012).
The toothfish fishery is to be managed through a preliminary stock assessment, implemented
for the first time in 2012/13 (SC-CAMLR 2012). Work continues to develop an accepted stock
assessment applicable to longer-term management (Rélot-Stirnemann 2011; SC-CAMLR 2011,
2012). Continuing work to improve understanding of the relationship between the Kerguelen
and Heard and McDonald-area toothfish is encouraged. While not target species, some
macrourids and rajids are processed on landing (ridge scaled rattail, Eaton’s skate, and
Kerguelen sandpaper skate). Landings are recorded and reported, but no stock assessments or
evaluations of the sustainability of harvest are available for these species (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Consideration of scientific advice is integral in this fishery and has improved significantly in
recent years (e.g., SC-CAMLR 2011). For now, an assessment of ‘Moderate’ has been made,
given that not all science-based advice has been demonstrated through management results, or
the implementation of science-based management measures has occurred somewhat slowly
over time. The continuation of the recent focus on developing and implementing science-based
management approaches for all retained species is expected to lead to an improvement in this
evaluation over time.
In this fishery, the approach to enforcement is multifaceted, including observers or scientific
experts onboard vessels, deployment of VMS, vessel inspections, vessel-based patrols,
surveillance (including using satellites), detailed permitting arrangements, clearly identified
roles and responsibilities for operators, and a catch documentation scheme for toothfish
(CCAMLR 2011). Joint patrols are also undertaken with Australian authorities given the
adjacency of Australian fisheries at Heard and McDonald Islands.
67
Measures that limit target catch and active management are in place. However, the uncertain
stock status for non-target retained species requires analysis. Consequently, long-term
abundance has not been demonstrated in the retained stocks as required by this criterion.
This fishery has opportunities for stakeholder engagement through the CCAMLR process (SCCAMLR 2011). Three bodies come together during the year to discuss matters relating to the
fishery. The first of these is the Réunion de Concertation Pêche, which meets once per year on
fishery management updates (e.g., conservation measures, quota), and includes scientists, the
TAAF administration, the ministries of foreign affairs, fisheries, and overseas, and fishing
industry managers. The Comité de ilotage des bonnes pratiques de la pêche (C3P) meets once
per year and involves TAAF administration, scientists, fishing industry, managers, captains and
essential crew members, and discusses best practices, including incidental mortality, bycatch,
cetacean depredation of toothfish, etc. Finally, the Groupe de Travail Pêche (GTP) meets three
times a year, and involves scientists, TAAF administration, ministries of foreign affairs, fisheries,
and overseas, and fishing industry managers, and discusses organization, including funding of
scientific research on fisheries management (e.g., fish stock assessment, E. Reuillard, personal
communication). Increased transparency could be achieved if decision-making influences and
processes were documented and reported, and if opportunities for public/NGO stakeholder
participation were more readily available. However, public/eNGOs are not known to have
requested participation (E. Reuillard, personal communication).
Chile – High concern
Some effective management measures are in place in this fishery, but the extent of
management differs between groups of vessels targeting toothfish. For example, industrial
vessels have been more comprehensively managed than artisanal vessels. Management
measures include limited entry into the fishery, restriction of gear to longlines (Subsecretaria de
Pesca 1992), catch limits (Subsecretaria de Pesca 2012), VMS, and observer monitoring (see
enforcement, below). For artisanal vessels, effort and capacity controls are in place
(Subsecretaria de Pesca 1986, 2008), and management has been improved in recent years by
the introduction of a requirement for VMS monitoring (port to port, from 2013) and
participation in the CAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme (Diario Official de la Republica de
Chile 2012). Other management measures include seasonal closures of specified (spawning)
areas (Subsecretaria de Pesca 1996). While the fishery occurs outside the Convention Area,
management measures described in domestic legislation include specified CCAMLR regulations
and conservation measures (Diario Oficial de la República de Chile 2012). The management
target requires maintenance of the stock at a minimum of 30% of the biomass in 1987 (the
reference year). Challenges include finding statistically robust determinations of catch limits
and implementation of catch limits across all sectors of the fleet targeting toothfish. A lack of
quotas for artisanal vessels (Gálvez et al. 2011) also renders robust management difficult.
68
Bigeye grenadier can be retained by crew members in the toothfish fishery. Research is
underway to investigate the sustainability of the catch of this species (C. Moreno, personal
communication).
Some controls exist on harvest and effort (i.e., catch limits for industrial vessels, controls on
fishing capacity, see above). However, a high risk of stock depletion has been identified
(Subsecretaria de Pesca 2011). The domestic management target is to maintain the stock at
30% SSB0 Within the uncertainties of the stock assessment, the quota is considered to maintain
the stock at current levels (18 – 38% SSB0) with around 10% exploitation rate for industrial
vessels. However, in 2011, exploitation at levels greater than the natural mortality rate was
identified (Subsecretaria de Pesca 2011). Currently, management actions are not demonstrably
supporting stock recovery. Strengthening management over time will assist stock recovery. An
increase in certainty around the stock assessment and a reduction of depletion risks may
improve this assessment.
A stock assessment has been completed and quotas are reviewed annually, but the efficacy of
current management is constrained by uncertainties including the nature and extent of the
data available. However, technical working group structures and the involvement of scientists
and industry in the development of management advice is reported to have improved in the
years since 2006 (Zuleta and Rubilar 2011). Recent research includes tagging, examination of
population structure using otolith chemistry, investigation of cetacean depredation of toothfish
on lines, and a study of reproductive biology (Zuleta and Hopf 2010; Subsecretaria de Pesca
2011). Such information has significant potential to improve management and knowledge of
the stock. Bigeye grenadier can also be retained by crew members in this toothfish fishery. No
stock assessment is currently available for this species, but research is underway investigating
the sustainability of this catch (C. Moreno, personal communication).
Technical working group structures and the involvement of scientists and industry in the
development of management advice is reported to have improved in the years since 2006
(Zuleta and Rubilar 2011). A significant body of work is underway that will lead to the
availability of more robust management advice in the future (e.g., Zuleta and Rubilar 2011).
Enforcement (moderately effective)
A variety of enforcement measures are in place in this fishery, including the CCAMLR Catch
Documentation Scheme, VMS (Diario Official de la Republica de Chile 2012), logbooks (Zuleta
and Rubilar 2011; Rubilar and Moreno 2012), and some observer coverage (focused on
industrial vessels). Increasing observer coverage to an identified target level of fishing effort,
including for artisanal vessels, would improve this assessment (Zuleta and Rubilar 2011).
69
Track record (ineffective)
There is a diversity of management measures in place in the domestic Chilean fishery, including
some aligned with global best practice (e.g., the CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme and
deployment of VMS). Stock status was reported to have been approximately stable at a low
level of abundance for a decade (Zupeta and Hopf 2010). However, declines in vulnerable
biomass and spawning biomass have also been reported since 2007 (Subsecretaría de Pesca
2011). Consequently, the long-term maintenance and recovery of the stock seem uncertain.
Nevertheless, many aspects of management continue to improve over time.
Technical working group structures and the involvement of scientists and industry in the
development of management advice is reported to have improved in the years since 2006
(Zuleta and Rubilar 2011). For example, terms of reference, minutes, and group remits are
documented. The groups appear to be restricted to those whose work relates to the fishery
rather than being open to a wider group of stakeholders. However, the group structure appears
to connect science and management effectively and to facilitate information exchange amongst
a group with diverse backgrounds and interests (Zuleta and Rubilar 2011).
Falkland Islands – Low concern
The Falkland Islands Government has the objective of “Conservation of sustainable resources
through effective management of fishing effort.”5 This objective is implemented using tools
such as fishing licenses, closed areas, catch limits, reporting, monitoring, and scientific data
collection (see below). Similar to CCAMLR toothfish fisheries, the management target for the
Falkland Islands fishery is to maintain the spawning stock biomass above 50% of its pre-fishery
level (V. Laptikhovsky, personal communication).
This fishery operates using a stock assessment that is updated annually (Falkland Islands
Government 2012; V. Laptikhovsky personal communication). Catch and stock levels are
monitored, and the total biomass of the stock is considered to be increasing (though not SSB as
yet). New data are collected annually in this fishery providing for the review of the model and
catch statistics. A new model is in use and its performance is being monitored (Falkland Islands
Government 2012; V. Laptikhovsky personal communication). The robustness of this new
model will be tested over time.
There is evidence (based on reduced TACs) and reports that science advice for management is
considered explicitly (Falkland Islands Government 2012; V. Laptikhovsky, personal
communication). Information from other fisheries is also used for toothfish fishery stock
5
http://www.fis.com/falklandfish/html/management.html
70
assessment and management, e.g., documentation of trawl bycatch of toothfish (J. Barton,
personal communication).
The Falklands fishery consists of a single vessel that is monitored by an onboard observer. The
Falklands government also monitors activities using VMS, aerial surveillance, and vessel-based
patrols (V. Laptikhovsky, personal communication). Tourist vessels provide another form of
legal presence and an opportunity to detect illegal activity. The CCAMLR catch documentation
scheme applies. Fish catch is monitored on a daily basis. Seasonally closed (spawning) areas are
also enforced (J. Barton, personal communication).
The managers of this fishery have responded to stock status including by reducing TACs in order
to promote the sustainability of the stock (Falkland Islands Government 2012; V. Laptikhovsky
personal communication). Total biomass is now increasing, which is expected to lead to a
commensurate increase in spawning stock biomass. Managers monitor spawning stock biomass
annually to ensure effective management with respect to harvesting goals (V. Laptikhovsky,
personal communication). Consequently, this fishery is considered to have a ‘highly effective’
track record.
There is significant opportunity for involvement in stakeholder involvement in the management
of the Falkland Islands fishery. Fisheries statistics are reported monthly and annually,
contributing to the transparency of management. Stakeholder bodies include the Falklands
Fisheries Liaison Committee (comprised of all fishers and the government Fisheries
Department), the Fisheries Advisory Committee (a statutory, monthly forum for consultation
between the Government and the industry on fisheries-related issues and to advise the
government), the Environmental Committee (a statutory, monthly environmental committee,
consulting body, and advisory to the government that includes NGOs, the government Fisheries
Department, the fisheries industry, the public, the government Environmental Department, the
farming community and others), and the Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association (a
body for fishing industry members provided for in legislation). The views of the Agreement on
the Conservation of Albatrosses and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are represented
locally on the Falkland Islands (J. Barton, personal communication).
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea – Moderate concern
These include a precautionary approach, use of an ecosystem approach, and following the
concept of ‘rational use’ (see Article 2 of the Convention, www.ccamlr.org, Appendix B).
Management objectives are pursued by various mechanisms including harvest management
71
rules, bycatch catch limits, vessel monitoring systems, conservation measures, etc. (see below,
and www.ccamlr.org). The existence and management of this fishery remains controversial due
to a number of factors including the location of the fishery, knowledge of the species,
population/stock dynamics, and the ecosystems involved (e.g., ASOC 2009; Jacquet et al. 2010;
Stokstad 2010; Constable 2011). New information is considered annually for this fishery, and
defined pathways exist for the translation of new information into management measures. For
example, new information on life history characteristics has been incorporated into stock
assessment models in the recent past and thereby informs catch limits (SC-CAMLR 2011).
However, there remains considerable uncertainty both in the parameters used in stock
assessment (see Criterion 1), and in the role of toothfish in the ecosystem (see Criterion 4).
Given the high inherent vulnerability of the species, lack of knowledge about the basic species
biology, and high uncertainty in the stock assessment, extra caution and close monitoring is
warranted. Biomass reference points should ideally be set at a level that takes into account
inherent vulnerability and allows for stocks to fulfill their role in the ecosystem; this level is
uncertain for Ross Sea toothfish, but target reference points are set in a single-species context
(Constable et al. 2000). Greater fishery-independent monitoring, both of toothfish and other
components of the ecosystem, are needed to provide the evidence that the management
strategy is being implemented effectively. In the absence of this information, and given the high
risk of harvesting a highly vulnerable, long-lived and ecologically important predator in a singlespecies context without greater knowledge, the management strategy of the fishery is
considered a moderate concern.
This fishery operates using a stock assessment that is updated annually and has been accepted
for management through the CCAMLR process (SC-CAMLR 2011). This model is updated
annually with new data (e.g., catch and biological information). There is a significant body of
data available relating to this fishery sourced through fisheries activities. A research survey of
pre-recruits is planned for 2011/12 and there are other ongoing data collection activities and
annual data reviews (SC-CAMLR 2011). However, there is currently no regular collection and
incorporation of fishery-independent data, and biological parameters used in stock assessments
are poorly known.
There is a defined and documented pathway by which scientific advice is considered and
incorporated into management. Management measures are formulated using scientific
information as part of the CCAMLR cycle, which includes extensive and iterative annual
evaluation of scientific information (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Enforcement is generally thorough, including observers on every vessel, deployment of VMS,
vessel inspections, surveillance, a catch documentation scheme for toothfish and regular
reviews of implementation and compliance (CCAMLR 2011). However, this fishery is comprised
of vessels from a number of nations whose approach to enforcement may vary. For example, a
recent case of significant overcatch was detected and reported, and most CCAMLR members
72
sought to declare that the vessel involved was fishing illegally. Ultimately, domestic sanctions
were applied as a penalty for the reported overcatch (CCAMLR 2011). The significant ice season
in the Ross Sea restricts the level of fishing activity possible in this area (including potential
illegal activity).
This fishery has harvested stocks to a level consistent with its management target during the
time it has operated (~15 years, SC-CAMLR 2011). The stock is considered to be significantly
above the target management level, and a comprehensive suite of monitoring and research
measures are in place to inform effective ongoing management. Consequently, the track record
of this fishery is considered ‘highly effective’.
Vessels flagged to the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom, and
Uruguay have all been active in this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011). The fishery provides
opportunities for stakeholder engagement through the CCAMLR process as well as through
domestic consultations in some countries. For example, in New Zealand, government-run
fisheries and conservation working groups are open to any individual or agency representative,
and representatives of non-governmental organizations and industry have joined national
delegations to CCAMLR. In the United Kingdom, meetings are held between government,
industry, non-governmental organizations, research providers, and other interested parties
prior to CCAMLR meetings. Non-governmental organization representatives have also formed
part of national delegations to CCAMLR (Akroyd et al. 2009). The processes required for Marine
Stewardship Council certification provide significant additional opportunities for stakeholder
involvement with a subset of the entities fishing in this area (Akroyd et al. 2010; www.msc.org).
Details of domestic consultation processes in other listed countries were not available at the
time of writing.
Factor 3.2. Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species
Bycatch data are recorded by observers onboard vessels and, for CCAMLR fisheries, also
recorded and reported as STATLANT data provided to the CCAMLR secretariat and published
(CCAMLR 2012). Bycatch volume is relatively low in most of the fisheries—usually less than 20%
of the catch volume. Few species (or species groups) are caught at volumes greater than 5% of
total catch. However, bycatch does include many species with high vulnerability to fishing,
including some classified as near threatened, vulnerable, and endangered (e.g., joined-fins
skate, white-chinned and grey petrels). Quantitative assessments of many bycatch species
populations are not available. Monitoring of captures of all bycatch species, combined with
appropriate ongoing research, is therefore critical for effective management. For fish bycatch,
management focuses on documenting and minimizing quantities caught (e.g., through bycatch
limits). In some fisheries, captures of biogenic habitat-forming organisms are recorded.
73
Identification (and protection) of vulnerable marine ecosystems is occurring in some fishery
areas. For seabirds and some marine mammals, bycatch is reduced through the deployment of
a range of effective mitigation devices (e.g., marine mammal excluders, streamer lines, discard
retention, line-weighting and area/seasonal closures to reduce seabird catch). Toothfish
fisheries generally have strong monitoring procedures in place that facilitate the development
of science advice and enforcement of bycatch reduction measures.
Detailed rationale:
South Georgia – Moderate concern
In this fishery, no species is caught at volumes greater than 5% of total catch. The management
approach is drawn from CCAMLR Article 2 and invokes a precautionary and ecosystem-based
approach (see above, or www.ccamlr.org, Appendix B). Management measures to reduce
bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals are comprehensive and based on global best practice.
For fish species, management measures include catch limits for macrourids and rajids, release
of skates that are alive on hauling, collection of detailed observer data, assessment of levels of
bycatch (including in population contexts when demographic data are available), and at-sea
bycatch reduction measures (e.g., move-on rules for bycatch species)(CCAMLR Conservation
Measures 33-02, 41-02; Medley et al. 2009; SC-CAMLR 2011). Bycatch measures are based on
information available but must rely on assumptions when quantitative analyses cannot
generate fishery or biologically based bycatch limits (e.g., for the species group of grenadiers,
SC-CAMLR 2011).
Observers are present on all vessels. There is a significant body of data available relating to
bycatch events in this fishery as well as extensive ongoing data collection and review (SCCAMLR 2011). Data collection includes full bycatch reporting, VMS data, details on gear
deployed, seabird and marine mammal bycatch mitigation measures, potential encounters with
vulnerable marine ecosystems, etc. Requirements for data collection by observers are
determined annually and sometimes include particular projects (e.g., for the Year-of-the-Skate
or International Polar Year). However, for many bycatch species, the scope and history of
analyses are limited such that the status of bycatch species cannot be assessed at the
population level (SC-CAMLR 2011). Reasons for this include the low bycatch rates of some
species.
Available information has been used to inform catch limits for bycatch species as well as
developing recommendations for, and evaluating the implementation of, bycatch reduction
measures (e.g., deployment of mitigation devices for seabirds and marine mammals; SC-CAMLR
2011).
74
Enforcement of measures relating to bycaught species is focused on observer data but more
broadly includes other measures as described for retained species above (see Criterion 3.1).
Heard and McDonald Islands – Very low concern
No bycatch species is caught at volumes of more than 5% of the total catch. The management
approach is drawn from AFMA and Article 2 of the CAMLR Convention and invokes a
precautionary and ecosystem-based approach (see above, or www.ccamlr.org, Appendix B).
The goal for bycatch management is to have negligible impacts on bycatch species at the
population level. This requires avoiding bycatch, minimizing it, or limiting it (with explicit
consideration of uncertainties) when avoidance and minimization do not meet conservation
objectives (Constable and Welsford 2011). Risk assessment supports the principles of the
management approach (Zhou et al. 2009). Management measures to reduce bycatch of
seabirds and marine mammals are comprehensive and based on global best practice. For fish
species, management measures include catch limits for macrourids and rajids, collection of
detailed observer data, assessment of levels of bycatch (including in population contexts when
demographic data are available), and at-sea bycatch reduction measures (e.g., catch limits and
move-on rules for bycatch species (e.g., CCAMLR Conservation Measures 33-02, 41-08; Lack et
al. 2009; SC-CAMLR 2011). Data collection on biogenic habitat-forming species is less advanced
than for other bycatch species, although spatial protection is considered an important tool for
reducing impacts at the population level. A project assessing the vulnerability of benthos to
bottom fishing is due to report in 2012 (AFMA 2012b). Bycatch measures are based on
information available but must rely on assumptions when quantitative analyses are insufficient
to generate fishery or biologically based limits (SC-CAMLR 2011).
bycatch events in this fishery as well as extensive ongoing data collection and review (SCCAMLR 2011). Data collection includes full bycatch reporting, VMS data, details on gear
vulnerable marine ecosystems, annual fishery-independent trawl surveys, etc. Requirements
for data collection by observers are developed yearly and described in annual status reports
(e.g., AFMA 2012b). Level 3 (quantitative) risk assessment has been conducted on species that
may be bycaught in this fishery.
Available information has been used to inform catch limits for bycatch species as well as
developing recommendations for, and evaluating the implementation of, bycatch reduction
measures (e.g., for seabirds and marine mammals, see above; SC-CAMLR 2011).
75
Enforcement of measures relating to bycatch species is focused on observer data (two
observers are present on all vessels) but more broadly includes other measures as described for
retained species above (see Criterion 3.1).
Macquarie Island – Very low concern
Since 2008, one species (southern sleeper shark) has been caught at levels greater than 1% (but
less than 5%) of the total catch volume. The management approach for bycatch species
includes conducting risk assessments on (possibly) bycaught species (Zhou and Fuller 2011),
implementing bycatch limits and seabird bycatch mitigation measures, and ongoing monitoring
of bycatch through the presence of observers on all vessels (AFMA 2012b; Morison et al. 2012).
Seabird bycatch reduction measures include components of global best practice (e.g., discard
retention and use of streamer lines).
Observers are present on all vessels in this fishery and extensive data collection is completed at
sea (AFMA 2012b). Data collection includes full bycatch reporting, VMS data, details on gear
vulnerable marine ecosystems, etc. Requirements for data collection by observers are
determined yearly and promulgated through annual status reports (e.g., AFMA 2012a). Analysis
includes quantitative risk assessment for potential (and actual) bycatch species (Zhou and Fuller
2011)
Management measures are reviewed annually in this fishery to ensure consistency with
CCAMLR and to ensure effective fishery management (AFMA 2012b). There is documented
evidence that science advice is considered in management (Morison et al. 2012).
Enforcement measures relevant to bycatch species are the same as for retained species
(Criterion 3.1, above).
Prince Edward and Marion Islands – Moderate concern
This fishery has measures in place to reduce bycatch of some species (e.g., mitigation devices to
reduce seabird captures) but not all (e.g., fish and invertebrates) (SC-CAMLR 2011). However,
the amount of fish bycatch taken in this fishery is very low (no catch reported for rajids in
recent years and less than 5 t of macrourids, although these still comprise more than 5% of
total catch volume, SC-CAMLR 2011). If fishing effort increases, mitigation measures for fish
bycatch will increase in importance. Seabird bycatch reduction measures utilized by CCAMLR
are implemented in this fishery with the exception of the closed season (SC-CAMLR 2011). The
76
appropriateness of the management approach in facilitating the recovery of bycatch species
(which were most likely depleted along with the toothfish stock during extensive past IUU
activities) will be tested over time. Harvesting strategies do not explicitly consider impacts on
invertebrates, but the gear configuration now used is thought to have lesser impacts than
conventional longline gear (Brown et al. 2010).
Observers are present on all vessels. Bycatch data for almost all years has been reported to
CCAMLR (SC-CAMLR 2011) for this fishery. Data collection includes the deployment of seabird
bycatch reduction measures. Recent changes in the fishery (e.g., gear type deployed) mean that
data have only been collected for a short time under the current operational regime. Therefore,
analyses relevant to the current operational context are difficult to conduct for bycatch species.
Consideration of scientific advice is ongoing for this fishery, in accordance with the annual
CCAMLR cycle. However, an assessment of ‘moderately effective’ has been made, given the
explicit consideration of economics in management decision making (Brandão and Butterworth
2009).
Enforcement of measures relating to bycatch species is focused on observer data but more
broadly includes other measures as described for retained species above (see Criterion 3.1).
Crozet Islands – Moderate concern
Ongoing changes in bycatch management approaches in this fishery have reduced seabird
bycatch considerably in recent years. A range of effective seabird bycatch reduction measures
have been deployed (e.g., streamer lines, line weighting, TAAF 2012, Marteau 2011). However,
all bycatch (including fish bycatch) has not been reduced to levels comparable to other CAMLR
Convention Area fisheries (SC-CAMLR 2011, see above). Measures in place for fish bycatch
include a code of conduct that stipulates avoidance of areas of high bycatch densities and the
requirement to cut skates from lines if they are not processed. The efficacy of these measures
in reducing bycatch has not yet been documented. Management measures relating to biogenic
habitat-forming organisms are not yet in place, but marine protected area discussions are
underway and refer to species indicative of vulnerable marine ecosystems (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Observers or scientific experts are present on all vessels. Data-based management of the
fisheries around the Crozet Islands is progressing, and data collection is ongoing in a variety of
areas including data relating to bycatch (e.g., seabirds, marine mammals, fish, vessel positions,
and deployment of bycatch reduction measures). However, data are not currently incorporated
into stock or population-level assessments for most bycatch species (SC-CAMLR 2011).
77
Consideration of scientific advice is integral in this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011) and a considerable
body of information is available. Recent improvements in science-based management are
apparent (e.g., seabird bycatch reductions, Marteau 2011), but not all science advice has been
implemented through management in a timely way across bycatch species.
The approach to enforcement in this fishery is multifaceted, including observers or scientific
experts onboard vessels, deployment of VMS, vessel inspections, surveillance, detailed
permitting arrangements, and clearly identified roles and responsibilities for operators
(CCAMLR 2011). Thus, bycatch species benefit from enforcement measures described in Section
3.1 above.
Kerguelen Island – Moderate concern
Ongoing changes in bycatch management approaches in this fishery have reduced seabird
bycatch considerably in recent years. A range of effective seabird bycatch reduction measures
has been deployed (e.g., streamer lines, line weighting; TAAF 2012, Marteau 2011). However,
not all bycatch (including fish bycatch) has been reduced to levels comparable across CAMLR
Convention Area fisheries (SC-CAMLR 2011, see above). Measures in place for fish bycatch
species include a code of conduct that stipulates avoidance of areas of high bycatch densities
and cutting skates from lines if they are not processed. The efficacy of these measures in
reducing bycatch is not yet documented. Management measures relating to biogenic habitatforming organisms are not yet in place, but marine protected area discussions in progress refer
to species that indicate vulnerable marine ecosystems (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Observers or scientific experts are present on all vessels. Data-based management of the
fisheries around the Kerguelen Islands is progressing, and data collection is ongoing in a variety
of areas including data relating to bycatch (e.g., seabirds, marine mammals, fish, vessel
positions, and deployment of bycatch reduction measures). However, data are not currently
incorporated into stock or population-level assessments for most bycatch species (SC-CAMLR
2011).
Consideration of scientific advice is integral in this fishery (SC-CAMLR 2011) and a considerable
body of information is available. Recent improvements in science-based management are
apparent (e.g., seabird bycatch reductions, Marteau 2011), but not all science advice has been
implemented through management in a timely way across bycatch species.
78
In this fishery, the approach to enforcement is multifaceted, including observers or scientific
experts onboard vessels, deployment of VMS, vessel inspections, surveillance, detailed
permitting arrangements, and clearly identified roles and responsibilities for operators
(CCAMLR 2011). Thus, bycatch species benefit from the enforcement measures described in
Section 3.1 above.
Management strategy and implementation (ineffective)
Fishing gear configuration is such that seabird bycatch is reported to have been eliminated
(Moreno et al. 2008). In addition, Chile has completed a National Plan of Action for Seabirds
that would otherwise apply (Moreno et al. 2003). Marine mammal interactions with fishing
gear have also been studied (Rubilar and Moreno 2012). Fish bycatch is not limited currently,
and the extent of data collection is unknown relative to the fleets’ fishing effort. However,
research on Bigeye grenadier is underway, and stock assessments for macrourids are under
development (C. Moreno, personal communication). Bycatch limits are not in place for any
species. Management for the conservation of biogenic habitat-forming organisms is not yet in
place.
Bycatch data are reported and available from certain portions of the Chilean fishery (Gálvez et
al. 2011). Stock assessments for macrourids are under development. Exploratory studies of
some bycatch species have been undertaken (e.g., deep-sea fish and chondrythians; Reyes et al.
2009; Reyes and Torres-Florez 2009) and database records are made for all species caught (C.
Moreno, personal communication). Several full-time observers are employed, but information
on fleet-wide observer coverage levels is not available. Observer coverage focuses on industrial
vessels; artisanal vessels do not appear to be routinely monitored by observers (Rubilar and
Moreno 2012). Scientific working groups are involved with research and deployment of
observers, as well as analysis of data collected (Zuleta and Rubilar 2011).
For fish bycatch, the development of scientific advice appears to be in its relatively early stages
(e.g., research on Bigeye grenadier and the development of macrourid stock assessments, as
described above). However, investigations of marine mammal interactions and seabird bycatch
on gear are more established. The components described in the scoring criteria do not fit the
Chilean situation well. However, based on the development of management measures for
target catch, scientific advice is considered ‘moderately effective’.
Enforcement (moderately effective)
Observers have conducted targeted research projects investigating fishing interactions with
bycatch species (e.g., marine mammals). This component is scored the same as for Section 3.1
in the absence of other information.
79
Falkland Islands – Moderate concern
Management of bycatch in this fishery is focused on minimizing catch and post-capture
mortality, however, one grenadier species is caught at volumes greater than 5% of total catch
and another at volumes greater than 1%. An assessment of skate viability on release (Benoît et
al. 2010) is used as a basis for the lack of bycatch limits on these species in this fishery. Seabird
bycatch reduction measures are deployed. Enforcing stock catch limits is an indirect measure by
which bycatch is limited. Ongoing research and data collection at sea provide information on
bycatch species and their abundance (e.g., Arkhipkin et al. 2008, 2012; Ruocco et al. 2012). For
seabirds, National Plans of Action have been developed (for trawl and longline fisheries).
Seabird bycatch reduction measures must be deployed such as streamer lines, Brickle curtain,
or weighted longlines (J. Barton, personal communication). While observer data is considered
to demonstrate that sustainability limits are not currently being exceeded for species such as
skates (J. Barton, personal communication), assessments are not made for all species in a
population context.
The single vessel comprising this fishery is monitored by an onboard observer. Data collection
and publication on bycatch species from this fishery is extensive and ongoing (Arkhipkin et al.
2012; Ruocco et al. 2012). Some analyses are conducted although as with other fisheries above,
analyses of certain species in population contexts are limited. This is sometimes due to low
levels of bycatch and/or population-level knowledge of bycatch species.
There is evidence (based on reduced TACs) and reports that management is responsive to
science advice (Falkland Islands Government 2012; V. Laptikhovsky, personal communication).
Enforcement: (highly effective)
The Falklands fishery consists of a single longliner with observer coverage. The Falklands
government also monitors activities using VMS, aerial surveillance, and vessel-based patrols (V.
Laptikhovsky, personal communication) (see Section 3.1, above).
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea – Low concern
The management approach is drawn from CCAMLR Article 2 and invokes a precautionary and
ecosystem-based approach (see above, or www.ccamlr.org). Grenadiers are caught at levels
greater than 5% of the total catch weight. However, a yield estimate is in place for Whitson’s
grenadier, and this is used as a basis for bycatch limits. Management measures to reduce
bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals are comprehensive and based on global best practice.
For fish species, management measures include catch limits for macrourids and rajids, release
80
of (untagged) skates and rays that are alive on hauling, collection of detailed observer data,
assessment of levels of bycatch (including in population contexts when demographic data are
available), and move-on rules for bycatch species (e.g., CCAMLR Conservation Measures 33-03,
41-09, 41-10; SC-CAMLR 2011). Bycatch measures are based on information available but must
rely on assumptions when quantitative analyses cannot generate fishery or biologically based
bycatch limits (e.g., for rajids; SC-CAMLR 2011).
bycatch events in this fishery as well as extensive ongoing data collection and review (SCCAMLR 2011). Data collection includes full catch reporting, VMS data, details on gear deployed,
monitoring implementation of bycatch reduction measures, etc. Requirements for data
collection by observers are determined annually and sometimes include particular projects.
Quantitative assessment has been undertaken and used to generate bycatch limits for
Whitson’s grenadier. For rajids, an assessment has been investigated but required additional
data for completion (SC-CAMLR 2011).
Management measures are developed for this fishery as part of the CCAMLR cycle. This
includes extensive and iterative annual evaluation of scientific data on bycatch species.
Available information has been used to inform catch limits for bycatch species as well as to
develop recommendations for, and evaluate the implementation of, bycatch reduction
measures (SC-CAMLR 2011).
The approach to enforcement of measures relating to bycatch species is focused on observer
data but more broadly includes other measures as described for retained species above (see
Criterion 3.1).
81
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem
Guiding principles


The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the
ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.
Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished
species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction
of genetic diversity.
Fishery
Impact of gear on
the substrate
Rank
(score)
South Georgia –
Patagonian Toothfish –
Longline
Kerguelen Patagonian
Toothfish Longline
Crozet – Patagonian
Toothfish – Longline
Heard and McDonald
Island Patagonian
Toothfish Longline
Macquarie Island –
Longline
Falkland Islands –
Longline
Ross Sea – Antarctic
Toothfish – Longline
Prince Edward and
Marion Islands –
Patagonian toothfish –
Longline
Chile domestic –
Patagonian toothfish –
Longline
Mitigation of gear
impacts
Rank (Score)
EBFM
Rank (Score)
Criterion 4
Rank
(score)
Moderate concern
(2)
Minimal mitigation
(0.25)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(2.6)
Moderate Concern
(2)
Moderate mitigation
(0.5)
High Concern (2)
Yellow
2.24
Moderate concern
(2)
Minimal mitigation
(0.25)
High concern
(2)
Red
(2.12)
Moderate Concern
(2)
Moderate mitigation
(0.5)
Low Concern (4)
Yellow
3.16
Moderate concern
(2)
Minimal mitigation
(0.25)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(2.6)
Moderate concern
(2)
Moderate mitigation
(0.5)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(2.74)
Moderate concern
(2)
Strong mitigation
(1)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(3)
Moderate concern
(2)
Moderate mitigation
(0.5)
Moderate concern
(3)
Yellow
(2.74)
Moderate concern
(2)
Moderate mitigation
(0.5)
High concern
(2)
Yellow
(2.24)
82
Justification
Factor 4.1. Impact of the fishing gear on the substrate: Moderate concern
The toothfish fisheries evaluated here are conducted using bottom longline gear (Gálvez et al.
2011; SC-CAMLR 2011; Morison et al. 2012). Longline gear targeting toothfish can take a variety
of configurations (e.g., trotline, autoline, Spanish longline; SC-CAMLR 2011). All areas fished
include at least some rocky substrates, although these may be mixed with other substrate
types. Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) may also be encountered, including (in the
CCAMLR context) seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold water corals, and sponge fields
(CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06; Gálvez et al. 2011; SC-CAMLR 2011; Laptikhovsky et al.
2012).
Factor 4.2. Modifying factor: Mitigation of fishing gear impacts
In recent years, CCAMLR has actively undertaken a work program on vulnerable marine
ecosystems and their management (e.g., including developing and implementing CCAMLR
Conservation Measures 22-06 and 22-07; SC-CAMLR 2011). In addition, a significant body of
work is underway on marine protected areas (SC-CAMLR 2011). In some fisheries both inside
and outside the CAMLR Convention Area, spatial management measures are already in place.
Gear modifications are in use in some fisheries to reduce the impacts of fishing on the substrate
(Daley et al. 2008; Moreno et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2010). Some fisheries are expected to have
diffuse impacts over large areas due to the low intensity of fishing activity. The distribution of
habitat types is not well known across fishing areas, but knowledge is gradually improving.
Some fisheries are active over large areas and short time periods, which leads to highly diffuse
habitat impacts.
Detailed rationale:
South Georgia – Minimal mitigation
Around South Georgia Island in areas utilized for toothfish fisheries, work relating to the
management of benthic impacts is ongoing. The main vulnerable and key habitats have been
identified, and benthic Restricted Impact Areas (RIAs) have been implemented and enforced.
RIAs cover more than 3,500 km2. Limited fishing is allowed in these areas for toothfish tagging
(Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands 2012). An extensive protected area
system has recently been established, including a prohibition on bottom trawling that covers
over 1 million km2 and a prohibition on fishing that covers more than 20,000 km2. Demersal
83
longline activity is restricted to depths of greater than 700 m (Government of South Georgia
and South Sandwich Islands 2012). Observer coverage monitors any benthic material raised on
fishing gear. The longline fishery has been estimated to impact ~0.001% of the overall area of
fishable seabed, but the footprint is not being actively reduced (Medley et al. 2009). CCAMLR
measures apply to this fishery (e.g., Conservation Measure 22-08). The measures currently in
place meet the Seafood Watch criteria for ‘minimal mitigation’ of fishing impacts.
Heard and McDonald Islands – Moderate mitigation
The Heard and McDonald Island Marine Reserve is reported to provide representative
ecosystem protection across 65,000 km2, comprising 39% of the islands’ EEZ waters of
trawlable depth (<1000 m). This reserve also excludes longline fishing (AFMA 2012a). This
fishery is managed in alignment with CCAMLR measures, and an evaluation of management
options for potential additional benthic protection measures is underway (Constable and
Welsford 2011). Observer coverage monitors any benthic material raised on fishing gear. Given
the large extent of spatial protection and limitations on fishing effort, longline impacts are
evaluated as ‘moderate mitigation’ in accordance with Seafood Watch criteria.
Kerguelen – Moderate mitigation
Fisheries around the Kerguelen Islands are catch-limited, vessel-limited, and also subject to
spatial allocation of fishing effort. Furthermore, depths of less than 500 m are closed to fishing,
and all trawling is forbidden (E. Reuillard, personal communication). The Kerguelen EEZ, is
approximately 547,000 km2. The extent of the closed area shelf region (from the coast to the
500m isobath) is 100,495 km2 (Koubi et 1991; Clot 2013); therefore, approximately 20% of the
Kerguelen EEZ is protected from all fishing activities. It is important to note that these
protected areas likely exceed 20% as the entire EEZ depth contours exceed fishing depths which
are a maximum of 2,000 meters, therefore 20% benthic protection represents a minimum area
in protection and is likely much greater when you add the non-fishable depths (greater than
2,000 meters). In addition, a significant body of work is underway to develop further proposals
for marine protected areas (Anonymous 2011; SC-CAMLR 2011; Koubbi et al. 2012; WG-EMM
2012). France has not enacted measures analogous to CCAMLR Conservation Measures 22-06
and 22-07, as these measures specify fisheries south of 60oS and where an established fishery
was in place in the 2006/07 season (Delegation of France 2009). Because a substantial portion
of the Kerguelen EEZ is in marine protected areas, mitigating fishing gear impacts is a moderate
conservation concern.
Crozet Islands- Minimal Mitigation
Fisheries around Crozet Islands are catch-limited, vessel-limited, and also subject to spatial
allocation of fishing effort. France has not enacted measures analogous to CCAMLR
Conservation Measures 22-06 and 22-07, as these measures specify fisheries south of 60oS and
where an established fishery was in place in the 2006/07 season (Delegation of France 2009).
84
Fishing effort is controlled, but not actively reduced in this region, therefore there is minimal
mitigation.
Prince Edward and Marion Islands – Moderate mitigation
Catch limits for the Prince Edward and Marion Islands fishery restrict fishing effort considerably
(SC-CAMLR 2011). Marine protected areas are in place within 12 nmi of the islands, and a
process is underway to develop a more substantial network of marine reserves (Nel and
Omardien 2008). Vessels use the trotline configuration (as below for Chile and the Falklands),
which is considered to have less impact on benthic substrates than other longline
configurations (R. Leslie, personal communication; Brown et al. 2010). Vessel limits are in place
but have not been met (or exceeded) in recent years (SC-CAMLR 2011). This fishery is
considered to have two measures from the ‘moderate mitigation’ category in place. This
assessment may improve as marine protection progresses.
Macquarie Island – Minimal mitigation
Around Macquarie Island, there is a no-take marine park protecting 162,000 km2 of the EEZ
(34%) (AFMA 2012a). Longlining is excluded from the marine park and fishing intensity is strictly
controlled, even though it is not declining. These conditions meet the requirements for a score
of ‘minimal mitigation’.
Falkland Islands – Moderate mitigation
In the Falkland Islands fishery, a single longliner operates over a range of approximately
200,000 km2, leading to highly diffuse impacts. Further, in recent years this vessel has used a
longline gear configuration in which baited hooks are clustered around weights rather than
evenly distributed along the line. While untested, this is thought to have less impact on the
seafloor than a traditional longline configuration (Brown et al. 2010; V. Laptikhovsky, personal
communication). This fishery is thus considered to deploy ‘moderate mitigation’. Studies of
deep-sea coral and vulnerable marine ecosystems are underway (J. Barton, personal
communication).
Chile – Moderate mitigation
No information specifically relating to habitat protection measures was available for Chile.
However, catch limits are set for sectors of this fishery, and some distinctions are made
regarding areas fished, vessel size limits (González et al. 2001), and vessel entry into the fishery
(Subsecretaria de Pesca 1986, 2008, 2012). Chilean vessels also use variants of the
configuration of gear described for the Falkland Islands (Moreno et al. 2008), which is thought
to have less impact on the seafloor than conventional demersal longline gear (Brown et al.
2010). In accordance with Seafood Watch criteria, this fishery is considered to exercise
‘moderate mitigation’.
85
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea – Strong mitigation
This fishery follows CCAMLR Conservation Measures relating to VMEs and has catch limits in
place affecting fishing intensity. In the Ross Sea (and all exploratory CCAMLR-managed
fisheries), depths of less than 550 m are closed to fishing (CCAMLR Conservation Measure 2208). Other areas are unavailable for fishing activity due to zero catch allocations (Small Scale
Research Units A, D, E, F, M in Statistical Subarea 88.1, and A and B in Subarea 88.2; CCAMLR
Conservation Measures 41-09, 41-10). Areas for which fishing is excluded comprise 55% of
Subareas 88.1 and 88.2, and include areas throughout the depth profile from 0–1800 m.
Distribution of non-fished areas across the depth profile increases the diversity of habitats
covered and therefore the representativeness of habitat protection. Move-on rules are in place
should VMEs be encountered (although their efficacy has been questioned, e.g., Auster et al.
2010). Observer coverage monitors any benthic material raised on fishing gear. Work relating to
habitat impacts is ongoing (e.g., identification and protection of VMEs). Some VMEs are already
protected (e.g., dense-stalked crinoid communities located in the management unit designated
SSRU 881G), and marine protected areas are currently under discussion (SC-CAMLR 2011). Risk
assessments are ongoing at multiple levels, including an annual assessment of impacts on
known and unknown VMEs (i.e., possible impacts of future fishing activity), which is required in
order to gain entry to this fishery (CCAMLR Conservation Measure 22-06). The Ross Sea fishery
is considered to have ‘strong mitigation’ in place.
Factor 4.3. Ecosystem and food web considerations
Toothfish are opportunistic carnivores, consumed by seabirds (e.g., petrels and penguins),
pinnipeds, and cetaceans (Hanchet 2008; Collins 2010). However, they are identified as an
exceptional species given their importance, in ecosystem models, as a fish predator (Pinkerton
et al. 2010). A range of management policies and procedures relating to ecosystems and food
webs are in place (e.g., an ecosystem-focused management approach based on current
knowledge (Appendix B), species catch limits, bycatch reduction measures, and spatial closures)
and under development (e.g., additional spatial protection measures) in toothfish fisheries. The
impacts of IUU fishing on ecosystems are not precisely known but can be qualitatively assessed
based on the type of fishing gear used. There is a large body of ecosystem-level research
underway, including modeling efforts, which will clarify assumptions made in current
management approaches (e.g., trophodynamics of toothfish). In addition to target catch and
bycatch-related management described previously, CCAMLR management measures aimed at
reducing ecosystem impacts include prohibition of the use of plastic packaging bands and
prohibition of the discharge of offal/discards containing hooks. Marine debris is also monitored
through land-based surveys. For many fisheries, classification is expected to improve in the
near future given spatial protection measures under development.
86
Detailed rationale:
South Georgia – Moderate concern
CCAMLR management has its foundations in an ecosystem-based approach (see above,
Appendix B). In developing harvesting approaches for toothfish, assumptions were made about
the species’ ecological role (Constable et al. 2000). Based on assumptions such as these,
toothfish removals in South Georgia have been reported as not high enough to compromise the
species’ ecological role (Medley et al. 2009). Catch limits based on stock assessments
developed from CCAMLR principles are in place. Collection of data by scientific observers and
other research programs (e.g., seabird population monitoring) ensures an ongoing information
stream including many ecosystem components that may be affected by the fishery (SC-CAMLR
2011). Ecosystem modeling has identified uncertainties requiring additional data collection
(Medley et al. 2010). An evaluation of ‘moderate concern’ has been made based on the
Seafood Watch criteria, while recognizing the significant body of information available on this
area.
Heard and McDonald Islands – Low concern
Management of fishing activity at Heard and McDonald Islands uses CCAMLR’s ecosystembased approach (Constable et al. 2000) and Australian domestic management principles (see
above). Australian and French scientists are working together to develop an ecosystem
monitoring program for the Heard, McDonald and Kerguelen fisheries (Welsford, D., personal
communication). Collection of data by scientific observers ensures an ongoing information
stream (SC-CAMLR 2011), which is complemented by research initiatives outside the fishery
(e.g., demographic studies of seabirds). In the Heard and McDonald area, spatial protection is a
key ecosystem-level management tool (AFMA 2012a), with 39% of the area of trawlable depth
closed to all fishing in a marine reserve designed to provide representative habitat protection.
Kerguelen and Crozet Islands – High concern
Fisheries around the Kerguelen and Crozet Islands operate under catch limits, although these
limits are not yet set using a stock assessment based on consideration of the target species’
ecological role (Rélot-Stirnemann 2011, SC-CAMLR 2011). Processes to develop marine
protected areas are underway (SC-CAMLR 2011). A significant body of work is underway
studying the ecosystem characteristics of the area in which fishing occurs (e.g., see Duhamel
and Welsford 2011) including some ecosystem modeling work (Pruvost et al. 2005). Although
work is underway to improve understanding of the ecosystem (Falguier and Marteau 2011),
there are no current explicit efforts to incorporate ecological knowledge into management.
Ongoing ecological assessments do not specifically address the ecological role of toothfish, and
the expansion of the fishery into deeper water may have unknown ecosystem impacts (Lord et
87
al. 2006). This assessment is expected to improve as current work is completed and emergent
management measures are implemented.
Prince Edward and Marion Islands – Moderate concern
For the fishery around the Prince Edward and Marion Islands, catch limits are in place (subject
to reassessment as data collection using newly implemented trotline gear proceeds, R. Leslie,
personal communication), and marine protected areas are under development (Nel and
Omardien 2008). Data is being collected on the fishery to ascertain the efficacy of trotline gear
and the nature of the catch (R. Leslie, personal communication). This fishery is assessed as a
‘moderate concern’, given the low level of fishing intensity (SC-CAMLR 2011), the work
underway on ecosystem components and modeling (Gurney, L. et al. 2011), and the current
spatial protections (Nel and Omardien 2008).
Falkland Islands – Moderate concern
The Falkland Islands toothfish fishery is controlled using catch limits and involves only a single
vessel fishing over a large area (see above). Management considers target and bycatch species
when setting TACs, and measures have been implemented to reduce bycatch (e.g., seabird) (V.
Laptikhovsky, personal communication). There is a significant body of information relevant to
the ecological context of toothfish fishing (e.g., Arkhipkin et al. 2003; Laptikhovsky et al. 2008;
Arkhipkin and Laptikhovsky 2010). The fishery is evaluated as a ‘moderate concern’ while
recognizing the work done to date and that confidence in the lack of negative ecosystem effects
will increase over time under the current management regime. A significant milestone in this
respect may be the recently documented increase in the abundance of black-browed
albatrosses (Thalassarche melanophris) (J. Barton, personal communication).
Macquarie Island – Moderate concern
Although it lies outside the CAMLR Convention Area, the Macquarie Island fishery area is
managed following the same principles as CCAMLR, and CCAMLR Conservation Measures are
implemented when relevant. The Macquarie Island Marine Park offers some ecosystem
protection through spatial protection (i.e., areas closed to fishing) on a large scale (34% of the
EEZ; AFMA 2012b). Ecological risk has also been examined and reported in this fishery (AFMA
2011). Given this management approach, the policies in place, and the range of measures
implemented (including significant spatial protection), this fishery’s ecosystem management
measures are considered a ‘moderate concern’.
Current management of target species in this fishery is focused primarily on catch limits.
However, research is ongoing for particular ecosystem components (e.g., seabirds and marine
mammals). A significant milestone with respect to reducing ecosystem impacts of the fishery
may be the recently documented increase in the abundance of black-browed albatrosses (G.
88
Robertson, personal communication). Research is ongoing relating to toothfish, fish bycatch,
seabird bycatch, and marine mammal interactions, with minimal focus on the ecological role
toothfish play in the system. There are currently no explicit efforts to incorporate the ecological
role of toothfish into the management system.
Antarctic toothfish
Ross Sea – Moderate concern
Fishing is excluded from 55% of this area across a range of depths (0–1800 m), although a
smaller proportion of prime toothfish fishing habitat (at depths 800-1200 m) is protected. The
Ross Sea fishery is also managed using the CCAMLR framework, encompassing both
precautionary and ecosystem considerations. As for Antarctic toothfish, management
approaches are linked to the assumption that this species is unlikely to comprise a significant
proportion of the diet of marine mammals and birds (Constable et al. 2000), and requires the
“maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related
populations of Antarctic marine living resources” (Appendix B). Harvesting decision rules
implement these principles through stock assessments and bycatch limits (SC-CAMLR 2011,
2012). Harvesting decision rules are such that the lower yield of the following two options (i.e., i
or ii) is implemented in the management approach: (i) the probability of the spawning biomass
dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation level over a 35-year harvesting period is
10%, or (ii) the median escapement in the spawning stock biomass (SSB) over a 35-year period
is 50% of the median pre-exploitation level at the end of the projection period (Constable et al.
2000).
Concerns have been raised regarding the effects that the removal of Antarctic toothfish from
Ross Sea ecosystems may have on Weddell seals and Ross Sea killer whales, both of which prey
on toothfish (DeVries et al. 2008; Ainley and Siniff 2009; Ainley and Ballard 2012). Research
suggests that coincident with the increase in the fishery for toothfish, toothfish have declined
dramatically in McMurdo Sound and in the vicinity of Ross Island, Ross Sea, while Ross Sea killer
whale observations in the area have also decreased (DeVries et al. 2008; Ainley and Ballard
2012).
However, there is controversy over the importance of toothfish as a prey species for these two
and other predators. In the balanced trophic model derived by Pinkerton et al. (2010),
production of large toothfish (>100 cm) satisfies 6.5% of the diet of Weddell seals, 5.6% of the
diet of orca and 2.6% of the diet of sperm whales. Further, while recognizing that the
importance of toothfish as a food source for these predator species is untested, the authors
note that the model does not support the hypothesis that fishing will change the predators’
diets by large amounts throughout the Ross Sea (Pinkerton et al. 2010). Pinkerton and
Bradford-Grieve (2012) reported that the biomass of top predators was 0.5% of the living
biomass (excluding bacteria) in the Ross Sea. They identified the six groups of greatest
ecological importance in the food web as phytoplankton, mesozooplankton, Antarctic silverfish
(P. antarcticum), small demersal fishes, Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and cephalopods.
89
Two other groups were considered likely to be important: crystal krill (E. crystallorophias) and
pelagic fishes. These eight groups were recommended as a basis for monitoring ecosystem
change. Overall, Antarctic toothfish was assessed as having moderate ecological importance in
the wider ecosystem, with a greater impact on medium-sized demersal fishes.
However, the conclusions of the modeling study by Pinkerton et al. (2010) are highly uncertain
as well, and Pinkerton notes that the model cannot inform whether toothfish consumption may
be important to predators at certain locations or times of year, or whether changes in toothfish
availability in the diet of predators could be ecologically important in the Ross Sea. It can
certainly not be ruled out that reducing toothfish abundance through fishing may have
substantial food web effects, including increasing foraging pressure on predators such as
Weddell seals and orcas. In addition, toothfish’s importance as a predator is not debated; there
are concerns that depletion of toothfish could eventually induce trophic cascades through the
release of predation pressure on medium-sized fishes (Pinkerton et al. 2010).
As described above, the importance of toothfish as a prey species remains debated in the
scientific literature, while the importance of toothfish as a predator is widely acknowledged.
Based on this information and erring on the side of caution, Seafood Watch considers Ross Sea
toothfish to be a species of exceptional importance to the ecosystem. As such, it is important
that the fishery be monitored not just for changes in toothfish abundance, but also for impacts
on predators and prey species. While there are ongoing efforts to better understand ecosystem
interactions in the region, regular monitoring of the fishery’s ecosystem impacts is not in place.
CCAMLR’s management target of 50% of virgin biomass is based on the assumption that
toothfish are not important prey species (Constable et al. 2000), therefore a single-species
approach is used, rather than using CCAMLR’s more conservative approach for managing
fisheries on important prey species (e.g. krill):
“….toothfish, as a large predator, is unlikely to constitute much of the diet of
seals and birds (SC-CAMLR, 1997). Therefore, the species is considered in a
single-species context and the second criterion is applied at the 50% level rather
than at the 75% level.” (p. 785)
There is continuing work on ecosystem modeling relating to this fishery. Furthermore, several
areas remain unavailable to fishing activity (CCAMLR Conservation Measures 41-09, 41-10).
However, given the controversy surrounding the toothfish’s role in the ecosystem, regular
monitoring of ecosystem impacts and explicit incorporation of potential ecosystem concerns
into management is needed; until these relationships are clarified, a precautionary approach
(e.g. fishing to B75% instead of B50%) would be merited. While data exploring ecosystem
impacts are inconclusive, there is a risk of trophic cascades or impacts on predators, particularly
as the fishery reduces biomass closer to the B50% target. As such, Seafood Watch considers the
ecosystem-based fishery management in the Ross Sea toothfish fishery to be a moderate
concern.
90
91
Overall Recommendation
The overall recommendation for the fishery is calculated as follows:
– Best Choice = Final score ≥ 3.2 and scores for Criteria 1, 3 and 4 are all ≥ 2.2 and
Criterion 2 subscore ≥ 2.2
– Some Concerns = Final score ≥ 2.2 and Criterion 3 ≥ 2.2 and
(Final score ≤ 3.2 or scores for Criteria 1 &4 ≤ 2.2 or Criterion 2 subscore ≤ 2.2)
-
Red= Final score < 2.2 or score for Criterion 3 < 2.2 or any one criterion has a critical score or
two or more of the following are < 2.2: Criterion 1 score, Criterion 2 subscore, Criterion 4 score
Stock
Fishery
Impacts
on the
stock
Rank
(score)
Heard and
McDonald
Patagonian
toothfish
Macquarie
Patagonian
Toothfish
*
Heard and
McDonald
Island
Patagonian
Toothfish
Longline
Macquarie
Island
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Green
5
Green
(5)
Impacts on
other species
Lowest scoring
species
*
Rank
(subscore, score)
Murray's skate
Heard and
McDonald,
Kerguelen
sandpaper skate,
Pacific sleeper
shark, Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Skates and rays,
Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow, 2.71,2.71
Southern sleeper
shark, Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow
(2.71 2.71)
Management
Habitat
and
ecosystem
Rank
(score)
Rank
(score)
Green
5
Yellow
3.16
BEST CHOICE
3.83
Green
(5)
Yellow
(2.6)
BEST CHOICE
(3.64)
Overall
Recommendation
(score)
Rank and color in the 'Impacts on other Species' column is defined based on the subscore rather than the score.
See www.seafoodwatch.org for more information about scoring rules.
92
Falkland Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish
Falkland Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Green
(5)
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish
Ross Sea Antarctic
Toothfish
Kerguelen Islands
Patagonian
toothfish
Crozet Island
Patagonian
Toothfish
South Georgia
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Ross Sea
Antarctic
Toothfish –
Longline
Kerguelen
Patagonian
Toothfish
Longline
Green
(5)
Green
(3.83)
Green
(3.83)
Crozet
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Red
(2.16)
Chile Patagonian
Toothfish
Chile Domestic
Patagonian
Toothfish –
Longline
Red
(1.41)
Antarctic starry
skate, Whitemouth skate,
Porbeagle
Falklands, Joinedfins skate,
Multispined
skate, Whitedotted skate,
Darkbelly skate,
Corals and
biogenic habitats,
Big-eye grenadier
Falklands, Benthic
invertebrates
Yellow
(2.71, 2.71)
Grenadiers,
Skates and rays
Red
(2.16, 2.16)
Grenadiers,
Skates and rays
Red (2.16,2.16)
Ridge scaled
rattail Kerguelen,
White-chinned
petrel, Whiteleg
skate Kerguelen,
Grey petrel, Raya
spp.
Red (2.16,2.16)
Crozet Island
Patagonian
toothfish,
Whiteleg skate
Crozet, Ridge
scaled rattail
Crozet, Grey
petrel, Whitechinned petrel
Red
(2.16, 2.05)
Yellownose skate
Red
(2.16, 2.16)
Green
(3.46)
Yellow
(2.74)
BEST CHOICE
(3.37)
Green
(3.87)
Yellow
(2.6)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
(3.23)
Green
(3.46)
Yellow
(3)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
(3.05)
Yellow
(3)
Yellow
(2.24)
GOOD
ALTERNATIVE
2.73
Red
(1.73)
Red
(2.12)
AVOID
2.01
Red
(1)
Yellow
(2.24)
AVOID
(1.62)
93
PE&MI
Patagonian
Toothfish
Prince Edward
and Marion
Islands
Patagonian
Toothfish –
longline
Red
(2.16)
Corals and
biogenic habitat
Yellow
(2.71, 2.71)
Red
(1.73)
Yellow
(2.74)
AVOID
(2.3)
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its
seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely
responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Many thanks to those who provided information and/or reviews that facilitated the completion
of this assessment: D. Ainley, E. Appleyard, J. Barton, P. Brickle, T. Clot, M. Collins, G. Duhamel,
A. Dunn, M. Exel, M. Favero, J. Fenaughty, D. Foster, A. Franco, M. Garcia, M. Haddon, S.
Hanchet, R. Hofman, V. Laptikhovsky, R. Leslie, F. Mollet, C. Moreno, S. Mormede, D. Ramm, A.
Relot-Stirnemann, E. Reuillard, N. Slicer, M. Pinkerton, J. Turner, J. Vilata, D. Welsford, and two
anonymous reviewers. Thanks also to J. Vilata for translation of Spanish language documents
and C. Peet for managing the assessment process.
94
References
AFMA. 2009. Ecological Risk Management Report for the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery –
Demersal Trawl Sub-fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
AFMA. 2011. Ecological Risk Management – Report for the Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery –
Demersal Longline Sub-Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
AFMA. 2012a. Annual Status Report: Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery. Australian Fisheries
Management Authority, Canberra.
AFMA. 2012b. Status Report: Heard and McDonald Islands Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management
Authority, Canberra.
Ainley, D.G. and Ballard, G. 2012. Trophic Interactions and the decrease in Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
prevalence with reduced availability of large fish in the southern Ross Sea. Aquatic Mammals 38:
153-160.
Ainley,D.G., N. Nur, J.T Eastman, G. Ballard, C.L Parkinson, C.W Evans, A.L. DeVries 2012. Decadal trends
in abundance, size and condition of Antarctic toothfish in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, 1972–
2011. Fish and Fisheries: doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00474.x
Ainley, D.G. and Siniff, D.B.2009. The importance of Antarctic toothfish as prey of Weddell Seals in the
Ross Sea: a review. Antarctic Science 21: 317–327.
Akroyd J., P. Medley, J. Rice, J. Combes, A. Hough. 2010. Public Certification Report for Ross Sea
Toothfish Longline Fishery. Ref: 82044 v5. Moody Marine Ltd, Derby. Available at:
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southern-ocean/ross-sea-toothfishlongline/assessmentdownloads1/Public_Certification_Report_Ross_Sea_Toothfish_Fishery_v5.pdf
Anonymous. 2011. Report of the Workshop on marine Protected Areas (Brest, France, 29 August to 2
September 2011). SC-CAMLR-XXX/6. CCAMLR, Hobart.
Arkhipkin, A. N. Baumgartner, P. Brickle, V. Laptikhovsky, J. Pompert, Z. Shcherbich. 2008. Biology of the
skates Bathyraja brachyurops and B. griseocauda in waters around the Falkland Islands,
southwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 560 – 570.
Arkhipkin, A., P. Brickle, V. Laptikhovsky. 2003. Variation in the diet of the Patagonian toothfish with
size, depth and season around the Falkland Islands. Journal of Fish Biology 63: 428-441.
Arkhipkin, A., P. Brickle, V. Laptikhovsky, J. Pompert, A. Winter. 2012. Skate assemblage on the eastern
Patagonian Shelf and Slope: structure, diversity and abundance. Journal of Fish Biology 80: 1704
– 1726.
Arkhipkin, A., V. Laptikhovsky. 2010. Convergence in life-history traits in migratory deep-water squid and
fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 1444-1451.
ASOC. 2009. MSC Notice of Objection. ASOC Objection December 11, 2009. Available at:
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southern-ocean/ross-sea-toothfishlongline/assessment-downloads-1/15.12.2009-asoc-notice-of-objection-ross-sea-toothfish.pdf
Auster P. J., K. Gjerde, E. Heupel, L. Watling, A. Grehan, A.D. Rogers. 2011. Definition and detection of
vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas: problems with the “move-on” rule. ICES Journal
of Marine Science 68: 254–264.
Barbraud C., C. Marteau, V. Ridoux, K. Delord, H. Weimerskirch. 2008. Demographic response of a
population of white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis to climate and longline fishery
bycatch. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1460-1467.
Barbraud, C., C. Marteau, K. Delord, H. Weimerskirch. 2011. Demographic responses of white-chinned
PetrelsProcellaria aequinoctialis and grey petrels P. cinerea to climate and longline fishery
95
bycatch. In: Duhamel, G. and Welsford, D.C. (eds) The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and
Fisheries. Paris: Société française d'ichtyologie.
Barton, J. Personal communication.Department of Fisheries, Falkland Islands. 25 June, 6 August 2012.
Benoît H.P., T. Hurlbut, J. Chassé. 2010. Assessing the factors influencing discard mortality of demersal
fishes using a semi-quantitative indicator of survival potential. Fisheries Research 106: 436-447.
Brandão A., D.S. Butterworth, B.P. Watkins, and D.G. Miller. 2002. A first attempt at an assessment of
the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edward Islands EEZ.
CCAMLR Science 9: 11-32.
Brandão A. and D.S. Butterworth. 2009. A proposed management procedure for the toothfish
(Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edward Islands vicinity. CCAMLR Science 16: 3369.
Brown J., P. Brickle, S. Hearne, G. French. 2012. An experimental investigation of the ‘umbrella’ and
‘Spanish’ system of longline fishing for the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the
Falkland Islands: implications for stock assessment and seabird bycatch. Fisheries Research 106:
404-412.
Bull, B., R. Francis, A. Dunn, A. McKenzie, D. Gilbert, M. Smith, R. Bian.CASAL (C++ algorithmic stock
assessment laboratory): CASAL User Manual v2.30-2012/03/21. NIWA Technical Report 135,
Wellington. Available at: http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/casalv230-2012-03-21.pdf.
Candy S.G. and A.J. Constable. 2008. An integrated stock assessment for the Patagonian toothfish
(Dissostichus eleginoides) for the Heard and McDonald Islands using CASAL. CCAMLR Science 15:
1–34.
Candy, S.G. and D. Welsford. 2009. Update of the integrated stock assessment for the Patagonian
toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) for the Heard and McDonald islands (Division 58.5.2).
CCAMLR Working Group –Fish Stock Assessment-09/20. CCAMLR, Hobart.
CCAMLR. 1997. Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Commission.Hobart, Australia
27 October – 7 November 1997. Available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/en/meetings/26.
CCAMLR. CCAMLR Identification Guide. Available at:
http://www.ccamlr.org/Pu/e/cds/ID%20Guide%20PatToothFish_ENG_A4.pdf
CCAMLR. 2011a. Report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Commission.Hobart, Australia
24 October – 4 November 2011. Available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/cr/11/all.pdf
CCAMLR. 2011b. Scheme of International Scientific Observation: Scientific Observers Manual.
Observation Guidelines and Reference Materials 2011. CCAMLR, Hobart. Available at:
http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/om/obsman.pdf.
CCAMLR. 2012. Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 24 (2002–2011). CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia.
Clarke, S. and MRAG. 2010. Best practice study of fish catch documentation schemes. MRAG Asia Pacific.
Available at: http://www.m2cms.com.au/uploaded/5/Final%20CDS%20Report%20August%2023.pdf.
Clot, Terry. Personal communication. 22 March 2013. Chief of fishing, French Southern and Antarctic
Lands
Collins, M. Personal communication. 14 August 2012.
Collins, M.A., P. Brickle, J. Brown, and M. Belchier. 2010. The Patagonian toothfish: biology, ecology, and
fishery. Advances in Marine Biology 58: 227-289.
Constable, A.J., R. Williams, W.K. de la Mare. 1998. Assessments of by-catch in trawl fisheries. CCAMLR
Science 5: 231-243
Constable, A., W. de la Mare, D. Agnew, I. Everson, D. Miller. 2000. Managing fisheries to conserve the
Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). – ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 778–791.
Constable, A. 2011. Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementation of the ecosystem approach to
96
managing fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12: 138 – 151.
Constable A.J., D.C. Welsford 2011. Developing a precautionary, ecosystem approach to managing
fisheries and other marine activities at Heard Island and McDonald Islands in the Indian Sector
of the Southern Ocean. In: Duhamel, G. and Welsford, D.C. (eds) The Kerguelen Plateau:
Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries. Paris: Société française d'ichtyologie.
Delegation of France. 2009. Evaluation of the conformity of French law and practice with CCAMLR
conservation measures. CCAMLR-XXVIII/34. Hobart.
Delegation of France. 2011. Review of the technical recommendations for the Patagonian toothfish
fishery in order to minimize by-catch. SC-CAMLR-XXX/BG/10. CCAMLR, Hobart.
Delord K., N. Gasco, H. Weimerskirch, C. Barbraud, T. Micol. 2005. Seabird mortality in the
Patagonian toothfish longline fishery around Crozet and Kerguelen Islands, 2001-2003. CCAMLR
Science 12: 53-80.
A.L. DeVries, Ainley, D.G., G. Ballard. 2008. Decline of the Antarctic toothfish and its predators in
McMurdo Sound and the southern Ross Sea, and recommendations for restoration. WG-EMM08/21. Online version available at:
http://www.penguinscience.com/reprints/ross_sea/Fishing_industry_taking_the_fish.pdf
Diario Official de la Republica de Chile. 2012. Diario Official de la Republica de Chile No. 40.312.
Sabado 14 de Julio de 2012.
Dunn, A. Personal communication, 8 – 20 August 2012. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research, New Zealand.
Dunn, A., P.L. Horn, and S.M. Hanchet. 2006. Revised estimates of the biological parameters for
Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea.
Duhamel, G., D. Welsford, (eds). 2011. The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries. Paris:
Société française d'ichtyologie.
Endicott, M. 2010. The Impact of the Toothfish Longline Fishery on Skate Populations around
South Georgia. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College London (University of London).
Exel, M. Personal communication, 1 – 25 August.Chair, COLTO.
Falkland Islands Government. 2012. Fisheries Department Fisheries Statistics, Volume 16,Stanley, FIG
Fisheries Department, Stanley.
Falguier, A., C. Marteau. 2011. The management of the natural marine reserve of the Terres australes
françaises (French Southern lands). In: Duhamel, G. and Welsford, D.C. (eds) The Kerguelen
Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries. Paris: Société française d'ichtyologie.
Fay G. 2011. Stock Assessment of the Macquarie Island fishery for Patagonian toothfish
(Dissostichus eleginoides) using data up to and including June 2010. CSIRO, Hobart.
Fay G., Tuck, G.N., and M. Haddon. 2011. Stock assessment of the Macquarie Island fishery for
Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) using data up to and including June 2010 –
addendum. CSIRO, Hobart.
Federal Register. 2003. Antarctic Marine Living Resources;CCAMLR Ecosystem MonitoringPermits;
Vessel Monitoring System;Catch Documentation Scheme; FishingSeason; Registered Agent; and
Disposition of Seized AMLR.Federal Register May 1, 68(84). Available at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-05-01/pdf/03-10679.pdf.
Federal Register.2007. Antarctic Marine Living Resources(AMLR); Centralized Vessel MonitoringSystem;
Preapproval of FreshToothfish Imports; Customs EntryNumber; Electronic CatchDocumentation
Scheme; ScientificObservers; Definitions; Seal Excluder Device; Information on Harvesting
Vessels. Federal Register August 23, 72(163). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2007-08-23/pdf/E7-16589.pdf.
Federal Register. 2010. Antarctic Marine Living Resources; Use of Centralized-Vessel Monitoring
97
System and Importation of Toothfish; Re-export and Export of Toothfish; Applications for Krill
Fishing; Regulatory Framework for Annual Conservation Measures.Federal Register April 9:
75(68). Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/FRNotices/CCAMLR_FR_4-910.pdf.
Froese R., D. Pauly. Editors. 2012. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,
version (04/2012).
Gálvez P.G., A.I. Flores, L.F. Chong, R.M. Céspedes, V.C. Ojeda, C.Z. Labrin, R.P. Bravo. 2011. Informe
Final. Convenio: Asesorìa integral para la toma de decisions en pesca y agricultura 2010.
Actividad No. 2: Peces Demersales. Seguimiento demersal y aguas profundas 2010. Seccíon V:
Recursos de aguas profundas. Subpesca Julio 2011. Instituto de Fomento Pescquero, Chile.
González E., R. Norambuena, M. García. 2001. Initial allocation of harvesting rights in the Chilean fishery
for Patagonian toothfish. Pp. 304-321 in: Shotton, R. Case studies on the allocation of
transferable quota rights in fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 411. FAO, Rome.
Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. 2012. South Georgia and South Sandwich
Islands Marine Protected Area Management Plan. Government of South Georgia and South
Sandwich Islands. Available at: http://www.sgisland.gs/download/MPA/MPA%20Plan%20v11.01%20Feb%2027_12.pdf.
Gurney, L., E. Pakhomov, B. Hunt. 2011. Life-support system of the Prince Edward Archipelago: overview
of local and advected resources. In: Duhamel, G. and Welsford, D.C. (eds) The Kerguelen
Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries. Paris: Société française d'ichtyologie.
Haddon, M. Personal communication. 15 August 2012. CSIRO, Australia.
Hanchet S.M. 2006. Species profile for Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni). CCAMLR XXV-WGFSA-02/26.CCAMLR, Hobart
Hanchet, S.M. 2010. Updated species profile for Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni). CCAMLR
XXIX-WG-FSA-10/24.CCAMLR, Hobart.
Hanchet, S.M., G.J. Rickard, J.M. Fenaughty, A. Dunn, M.J.H. Williams. 2008a. A hypothetical life cycle for
Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea region. CCAMLR Science 15: 35-53.
Hanchet, S.M., Fu, D., Dunn, A. 2008b. Indicative estimates of biomass and yield of Whitson’s grenadier
(M. whitsoni) on the continental slope of the Ross Sea in subareas 88.1 and 88.2. CCAMLR WGFSA-08/32.
Hanchet, S.M., S. Mormede, A. Dunn. 2010. Distribution and relative abundance of Antarctic toothfish
(Dissostichus mawsoni) on the Ross Sea shelf. CCAMLR Science 17: 33-51.
Hibberd, T., K. Moore. 2009. Field Identification Guide to Heard Island and McDonald Islands Benthic
Invertebrates. A Guide for Scientific Observers Aboard Fishing Vessels. Australian Antarctic
Division. Available at: www.ccamlr.org/.../HIMI%20benthic%20invertebrate%20field%20g.
IUCN 2012.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.1.http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Downloaded on 19 June 2012.
Jacquet, J., D. Pauly, D. Ainley, S. Holt, P. Dayton, J. Jackson. 2010. Seafood stewardship in crisis
Nature 467: 28-29.
Koubbi, P., Ibanex, F., Duhamel, D. 2991. Environmental influences on spatio-temporal oceanic
distribution of ichthyoplankton around the Kerguelen Islands (Southern Ocean). Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 72: 225-238
Koubbi, P., R. Crawford, N. Alloncle, N. Ameziane, C. Barbraud, D. Besson, C. Bost, K. Delord, G. Duhamel,
L. Douglass, C. Guinet, G. Hosie, P.-A. Hulley, J.-O. Irisson , K. Kovacs, E. Lagabrielle, R. Leslie, A.
Lombard, A. Makhado, C. Martinez, S. Mormede, F. Penot, P. Pistorius, P. Pruvost, B. Raymond,
E. Reuillard, J. Ringelstein, T. Samaai, P. Tixier, H. Verheye, S. Vigetta, C. von Quillfeldt, H.
Weimerskirch. 2012. Estimating the bioveristy of Planning Domain 5 (Marion and Prince Edward
Islands – Del Cano – Crozet) for ecoregionalisation. WG-EMM-12/33 Rev. 1. CCAMLR, Hobart.
98
Lack, M. 2008. Continuing CCAMLR's Fight against IUU Fishing for Toothfish.WWF Australia and
TRAFFIC International.
Lack M, A. Morison, S. Daume. 2012. MSC Public Certification Report: The Australian Heard Island and
McDonald Islands Patagonian toothfish fishery. Scientific Certification Systems, Emeryville,
California. Available at: www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southernocean/heard_island_and_mcdonald_islands_himi_toothfish/assessment-downloads.
Laptikhovsky V. Personal communications. 20, 25, 28 June 2012.
Laptikhovsky, V., A. Arkhipkin, P. Brickle. 2008. Life history, fishery and stock conservation of the
Patagonian toothfish around the Falkland Islands. American Fisheries Society Symposium 49:
1357-1363.
Laptikhovsky V., A.Winter, P. Brickle, A. Arkhipkin. 2012. Vessel Units, Allowable Effort, and Total
Allowable Catch. Falkland Islands Fisheries Department.Stanley.
Leslie R. Personal Communication. 20 June 2012. Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries,
South Africa.
Lodge, M. 2010. Third decision of the independent adjudicator in the matter of an objection to the final
report and determination on the proposed certification of the Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish
longline fishery in accordance with the MSC principles and criteria for sustainable fishing.
Available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southern-ocean/ross-sea-toothfishlongline/assessment-downloads-1/08.10.2010-ross-sea-toothfish-third-determination.pdf
Lord, C., Duhamel, G. Pruvost, P. 2006. The Patagonian toothfish fishery in the Kerguelen
Islands. CCAMLR Science 13: 1-25
Marko, P., Nance, H., Guynn, K. 2011. Genetic detection of mislabeled fish from a certified sustainable
fishery. Current Biology 21(16):R621-2.
Marteau, C. 2011. Assessment of the Action Plan aimed at reducing incidental catch of seabirds
in the French EEZ included in the CCAMLR division 58.5.1 and subarea 58.6. WG-IMAF-11/10
Rev. 1. CCAMLR, Hobart.
Medley P., G. Pilling, J. Rice, J. Combes, A. Hough. 2009. Re-certification Public Certification Report for
South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish Longline Fishery Ref: 82003. Moody Marine Ltd, Derby.
Available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/southgeorgia-patagonian-toothfish-longline/reassessment-documentation/17.09.2009-south-georgiatoothfish-pcr.pdf
Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo, Subsecretaría de Pesca 2010. Informe Tecnico (R. Pesq.)
No. 98 – 2010. Cuota global de captura de bacalao de profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides) en
la unidad de pesqueria, año 2011. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo Subsecretaría de
Pesca. Valparaiso, Chile.
Moreno, C. Personal communication. 15 August 2012. Universidad Australe de Chile.
Moreno, C. et al 2003. FIP 2003-21 Plan de Acción Nacional de Chile para mitigar efectos de la pesca de
palangre sobre Aves Marinas (PAN-AM). Available at:
http://www.fip.cl/FIP/Archivos/pdf/informes/inffinal%202003-21.pdf.
Moreno C.A., R. Castro, L.J. Mújica, P. Reyes. 2008. Significant conservation benefits obtained from the
use of a new fishing gear in the Chilean Patagonian toothfish fishery. CCAMLR Science 15: 79–
91.
Morison A.S., I. Knuckey, M. Lack. 2012. MSC Public Comment Draft Report: Macquarie Island Toothfish
Fishery. Scientific Certification Systems, Emeryville, California. Available at:
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/southernocean/macquarie_island_toothfish/assessment-downloads.
Nel D.C., A. Omardian. 2008. Towards the development of a marine protected areas and the Prince
Edward Islands. WWF South Africa Report Series – 2008/Marine/01.
99
Pinkerton M.H., A. Dunn, S.M. Hanchet. 2007. Ecological risk management and the fishery for the
Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. WG-EMM 07/24,
CCAMLR, Hobart.
Pinkerton M.H., J.M. Bradford-Grieve, S.M. Hanchet. 2010. A balanced model of the food web
of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. CCAMLR Science 17: 1-31.
Pruvost, P., G. Duhamel, M. Palomares. 2005. An ecosystem model of the Kerguelen Islands’ EEZ. In:
Palomares M., P. Pruvost, T. Pitcher, D. Pauly (eds) Modeling Antarctic marine ecosystems.
Fisheries Centre Research Reports 13(7).Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.
Rélot-Stirnemann, A. 2011. Stock assessment of the Patagonian toothfish, Dissostichus
eleginoides, harvested by the French fishery at Kerguelen Islands (division 58.5.1 of the
CCAMLR).WG-FSA-11/28. CCAMLR, Hobart.
Reuillard, E. 2012.Personal communications, 20 – 26 August. Terres australes et antarctiques françaises.
Reyes, P.R., J.P. Torres-Florez. 2009. Diversidad, distribucion, riqueza y abundancia de condrictios de
aguas profundas a traves del archipelago patagonico austral, Cabo de Hornos, Islas Diego
Ramirez y el sector norte del paso Drake. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 44: 243251.
Reyes, P.R., J.P. Torres, E.M. Reyes. 2009. Peces abisales del extreme austral de America del sur (52oS57oS), components de la fauna acompanante de la pesqueria de palangre del bacalao de
profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides Smitt, 1898). Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía
44: 59-65.
Robertson, G. Personal communication. 6 August 2012. Australian Antarctic Division, Hobart.
Rubilar P., C. Moreno. 2012. Informe de Avance II: Pesca de Investigacion Bacalao 2011 Monitoreo
pesqueria-dependiente de la abundancia del bacalao e interaccion de los mamiferos con la
pesca en el area licitada. Centro de Estudios Pesqueros S.A. Enero de 2012.
Ruocco, N., L. Lucifora, J. Diaz de Astarloa, R. Menni, E. Mabragana, D. Giberto. 2008. Latin American
Journal of Aquatic Research 40: 102 – 112.
SC-CAMLR 2004.Report of the Twenty-fourth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart, 24 - 28 Oct
2005. http://www.ccamlr.org/en/SC-CAMLR-XXIV.
SC-CAMLR 2006. Report of the Twenty-fifth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart,
Australia 23-27 October 2006. Available at: www.ccamlr.org/en/SC-CAMLR-XXV
SC-CAMLR 2007. Report of the Twenty-sixth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart,
Australia 22-26 October 2007. Available at:www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sr/07/all.pdf
SC-CAMLR 2009. Report of the Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart,
Australia 26-30 October 2009. Available at: www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sr/09/all.pdf
SC-CAMLR 2010. Report of the Twenty-ninth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart,
Australia 25-29 October 2010. Available at:www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sr/10/all.pdf
SC-CAMLR 2011. Report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart, Australia
24-28 October 2011. Available at: www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sr/11/all.pdf
SC-CAMLR 2012. Report of the Thirty-first Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Hobart, Australia
22-26 October 2012. Available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/en/sc-camlr-xxxi
Stokstad, E. Behind the Eco-Label, a Debate Over Antarctic Toothfish, Science 24 September
2010: 329 (5999): 1596-1597,
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 1986. Decreto 439, Establece medida de regulacion para la pesqueria del
recurso que se indica. Subsecretaría de Pesca, Gobierno de Chile.
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 1992. Resolucion 1249, Regula arte de pesca para la captura del recurso bacalao
de profundidad. Subsecretaría de Pesca, Gobierno de Chile.
100
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 1996. Decreto 273, Establece veda biologica para el recurso bacalao de
profundidad en area de pesca que indica. Subsecretaría de Pesca, Gobierno de Chile.
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 2008. Resolucion extent 151, Suspende transitoriamente la inscripcion en el
registro artisanal en la pesqueria de bacalao de profundidad por periodic que indica,
Subsecretaría de Pesca, Gobierno de Chile.
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 2011. Informe técnico (R. Pesq.) No. 95. Cuota global de captura de bacalao de
profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides) en la unidad de pesquería, año 2012. Subsecretaría de
Pesca, Gobierno de Chile.
Subsecretaría de Pesca. 2012. Decreto Exento 1109. Establece cuota global annual de captura de la
especie bacalao de profundidad en area de pesca que indica. Subsecretaría de Pesca, Gobierno
de Chile.
TAAF. 2011. Arrêté no. 2011-68 du 26 août 2011. Portant fixation du total admissible de capture de
légine (Dissostichus eleginoides) et sa repartition en quota, dont la pêche est autorisée pendant
la campagne 2011-2012 dans les zones économiques exclusives de Kerguelen et de Crozet.
Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises.
TAAF. 2012. Arrêté no. 2012-78 du 6 août 2012. Prescrivant les règles encadrant l’exercice de la pêche à
la légine austral (Dissostichus eleginoides), dans les zones économiques exclusives de Crozet et
de Kerguelen. Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises.
Welsford, D. Personal communication. 20, 21 June 2012. Australian Antarctic Division, Hobart.
WG-EMM. 2012. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (Santa Cruz
de Tenerife, Spain, 2 to 13 July 2012). CCAMLR, Hobart.
WG-FSA. 2012. Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (Hobart, Australia, 8 to 19
October 2012). CCAMLR, Hobart.
Zhou, S., M. Fuller, T. Smith. 2009. Rapid quantitative risk assessment for fish species in seven
Commonwealth fisheries. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
Zhou, S., M. Fuller. 2011. Sustainability assessment for fishing effect on fish bycatch species in the
Macquarie Island Toothfish Longline Fishery: 2007-2010. Australia Fisheries Management
Authority, Canberra.
Zuleta, A., S. Hopf. 2010. Informe Tecnico: Status del bacalao de profundidad en la unidad de pesquería
licitada. Remitido a la Secretar a Ejecutiva del GT-BAC. Centro de Estudios Pesqueros S.A.
Zuleta, A., P.S. Rubilar. 2011. Contribucion del Programa de Investigacíon Colaborativa SUBPESCA-OBAC
a la gestíon de la pesquería del Bacalao. Centro de Estudios Pesqueros S.A.
101
Appendix A: Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Article 2
The following text describes CCAMLR’s approach to management. The full text of the
Convention can be viewed at: http://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/camlr-convention-text.
Article II
“1.
2.
The objective of this Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘conservation’ includes rational use.
3.
Any harvesting and associated activities in the area to which this Convention applies shall be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and with the following principles of
conservation:
(a) prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population to levels below those which ensure
its stable recruitment. For this purpose its size should not be allowed to fall below a level close to that
which ensures the greatest net annual increment;
(b) maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related
populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted populations to the
levels defined in sub-paragraph (a) above; and
(c) prevention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are
not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account the state of available
knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species,
the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental
changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living
resources.”
102
Appendix B: Review Schedule
All fisheries included in this assessment are subject to annual reviews. CCAMLR fisheries are
reviewed annually in October. Fisheries that have received Marine Stewardship Council
certification are subjected to an annual surveillance audit publicized at www.msc.org. For
other fisheries assessed (i.e. Chile and Falklands), review timeframes are still annual, but follow
independent schedules. Review in February 2014 is recommended.
103
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of
wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood
Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or
farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based
recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be
downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of
important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make
choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood
Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and
ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s
conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or
“Avoid”. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the
Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed
journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical
publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews
of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly
with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation
organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and
aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes,
Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be
updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean
ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more
information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch®
program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by
external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific
review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its
recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible
for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation.
104
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished6 or
farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be
considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:






Stocks are healthy and abundant.
marine life.
The fishery minimizes bycatch.
The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species.
The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the
ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.
Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished
species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction
of genetic diversity.
Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability
criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation
for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Impacts on the species/stock for which you want a recommendation
Impacts on other species
Effectiveness of management
Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Each criterion includes:
 Factors to evaluate and rank
 Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score
 A resulting numerical score and rank for that criterion
Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation
is developed on additional evaluation guidelines.
Criteria ranks and the overall
recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch
pocket guide:
Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
6 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
105
Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or
farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that
harm other marine life or the environment.

Full species report here

Transcription

Similar documents

Saturday, October 17 Port Administration Main Dock, Fagatogo

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

Drumble House

Chilean Sea Bass - Royal Hawaiian Seafood

Ika-57 taon na pagdiriwang ng Samahang Wag-Wag

A resolution requesting Hon. Edgardo A. Tallado, Governor and the

4959_01_Integrity_Case_Study_Elizabeth Island/Bensonwood.indd